Kerala High Court
Romio.T.A vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 10 September, 2025
2025:KER:67135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA, 1947
MACA NO. 1066 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 08.05.2019 IN OPMV NO.662 OF
2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ROMIO T.A.
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O ALLESE, THOZHUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARTHEDOM,
ELANKUNNAPPUZHA P.O.682 503.
BY ADV SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
9, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PHASE-1, MAYAPURI,
NEW DELHI-110 064, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
BY ADV SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 10.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:67135
MACA NO. 1066 OF 2020
2
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.1066 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of September 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV)
No.662/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Perumbavoor, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 08/05/2019. The sole
respondent herein is the third respondent/insurer in the petition. In
this appeal, the parties and documents will be referred to as
described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on 20/03/2016 at
about 01:30 a.m., while he was walking through the side of Kalady-
Malayattoor road at the place by name Malayattoor, car bearing
registration no.DL-2/FF-66 driven by the second respondent in a
2025:KER:67135
MACA NO. 1066 OF 2020
rash and negligent manner knocked him down, as a result of which
he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of ₹15,00,000/- was claimed
as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle
remained ex parte.
4. The second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle
filed written statement denying negligence on his part. It was
contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
claim petitioner.
5. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending
vehicle, but denied negligence on the part of the second
respondent/driver.
6. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by
either side. Exts.A1 to A12 and Ext.C1 were marked on the side of
the claim petitioner and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the
respondents.
2025:KER:67135
MACA NO. 1066 OF 2020
7. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary
evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part
of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting in
the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹9,68,681/- together
with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till
realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award,
the claim petitioner has come up in appeal.
8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal
is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal
calling for an interference by this Court.
9. Heard both sides
10. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the
following heads is challenged by the claim petitioner -
Notional income
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner
that the latter, a 28-year-old electrician, was earning ₹30,000/- per
month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹9,000/-
2025:KER:67135
MACA NO. 1066 OF 2020
which is quite low even going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13
SCC 236. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
third respondent/insurer that in the absence of any materials to
prove the income, the income that has been fixed by the Tribunal is
quite reasonable and that it does not call for any interference.
10.1. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the
income of even a coolie in the year 2016 is liable to be fixed at
₹10,500/-. Here, the fact that the claim petitioner was an electrician
at the relevant time is not seen disputed. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that the notional income can be
fixed at ₹11,000/-.
Addition to be made towards future prospects
11. The claim petitioner was 28 years old when the accident
occurred on 20/03/2016. The percentage of disability sustained is
31.4%, which is quite high. Hence, I find that 40% of his
established income is liable to be added towards future prospects
2025:KER:67135
MACA NO. 1066 OF 2020
while computing compensation for permanent disability.
Loss of amenities
12. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner
has sustained 'right fronto-temporo-parietal acute SDH'. He was
hospitalized for a period of 11 days. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that an amount of ₹1,10,000/-
under this head would be just and reasonable.
13. The impugned Award is modified to the following
extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
(in ₹) Tribunal (in ₹)
(in ₹)
1. Loss of earnings 10,00,000/- 81,000/- 99,000/-
(9,000 x 9) (11,000 x 9)
2. Partial loss of 2,00,000/- Nil Nil
earnings (No Modification)
3. Transport to 1,00,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-
hospital (No Modification)
4. Extra nourishment 3,00,000/- 5,500/- 5,500/-
(No Modification)
5. Damage to clothes 1,00,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
(No Modification)
2025:KER:67135
MACA NO. 1066 OF 2020
6. Medical expenses 5,00,000/- 1,04,177/- 1,04,177/-
(No Modification)
7. Pain & suffering 5,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
(No Modification)
8. Loss of amenities 5,00,000/- 90,000/- 1,10,000/-
etc
9. Permanent 10,00,000/- 5,76,504/- 9,86,462/-
disability (9,000x12x17 [(11,000+40%)
x31.4/100) x12x17x31.4/100]
10 Attendance charge 3,00,000/- 5,500/- 5,500/-
(No Modification)
11 Loss of earning 1,00,000/- Nil Nil
power (No Modification)
12 Future prospects 5,00,000/- Nil Nil
(No Modification)
13 Disfiguration 3,00,000/- Nil Nil
(No Modification)
Total limited to 9,68,681/- 14,16,639/-
15,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹4,47,958/- (total
compensation = ₹14,16,639/- that is, ₹9,68,681/- granted by the
Tribunal plus ₹4,47,958/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate
of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization
(excluding the period of 211 days delay in filing the appeal) and
2025:KER:67135
MACA NO. 1066 OF 2020
proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer is directed to
deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of
60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On
deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the
claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making
deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
NP
