Kerala High Court
P.R.Venkitachalam vs Vijayakumar(*Deleted) on 12 September, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.617 of 2020
1
2025:KER:67859
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 21ST BHADRA, 1947
MACA NO. 617 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 05.08.2019 IN OPMV NO.920 OF
2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
PALAKKAD.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
P.R.VENKITACHALAM,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.THANKAM, HOUSE NO.2/22,
NEW STREET, NEW VILLAGE, KOLLENGODE,
PALAKKAD -678 506 NOW RESIDING AT HOTEL SREE
LAKSHMI, SWATHI JUNCTION,
N.H.ROAD, ALTHUR P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 541.
BY ADV SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 VIJAYAKUMAR(DELETED)
4/1204, RAMA BHAVAN,
KARUVANKONAM,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 003.
2 PRASURAMAN NAIR(DELETED)
S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI P.,
GED 64 YEARS, GANGA,
KUNDAMANBHAGAM,
PEYAD POST,
TRIVANDRUM - 695573.
M.A.C.A.No.617 of 2020
2
2025:KER:67859
3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
HARDHYAN SINGH ROAD,
KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110 011,
AND HAVING COMMUNICATION ADDRESS AT 3RD FLOOR,
MALABAR FORT BUILDING,
OLD KANDATH COMPLEX,
G.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.(R1 AND 2 ARE DELETED
FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF APPELLANT AS
PER ORDER DATED 07-04-2022 IN IA 2/2020 )
BY ADV SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 12.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.617 of 2020
3
2025:KER:67859
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.617 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th 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.920/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Palakkad (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 05/08/2019. The sole
respondent herein is the third respondent in the petition. In this
appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as
described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on
24/11/2016 at about 01:10 p.m., while he was riding motorcycle
bearing registration no.KL-09-AD-9652 through Thrissur-
Palakkad National Highway, car bearing registration no.KL-01-
2025:KER:67859
AN-5859 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent
manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained
grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner and the second
respondent-driver of the offending car remained ex-parte.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written
statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part
of the second respondent-driver. The averments in the petition
regarding age, occupation and monthly income of the claim
petitioner were disputed. The compensation claimed under
various heads was contended to be exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was
adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A17 and Ext.C1 were marked
on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was
produced by the respondents.
6. 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
2025:KER:67859
offending car resulting in the incident and hence awarded an
amount of ₹1,54,389/- together with interest @ 7.5% 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.
7. 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.
8. Heard both sides.
9. 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, proprietor of a hotel, was earning
₹70,000/- per month. However the Tribunal fixed the notional
income at ₹7,000/-, which is quite low and hence the same needs
to be enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel
for the third respondent-insurer that in the absence of any
2025:KER:67859
evidence on record, the amount that has been fixed by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not call for any
interference.
9.1. It is true that there are no materials on record to
prove the income claimed by the claim petitioner. However, in
the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC
236, the notional income of the claim petitioner is fixed at
₹10,500/-.
Bystander expenses
10. The accident occurred on 24/11/2016. The
claim petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 5 days. Hence, he
can be awarded compensation at the rate of ₹450/- for a period of
5 days, that is, ₹2,250/-.
Percentage of disability
11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
claim petitioner that when the Medical Board as per Ext.C1 has
fixed the permanent disability as 20%, the Tribunal was not
2025:KER:67859
justified in scaling down the disability to 8%, which is an
infirmity committed by the Tribunal and hence the same needs to
be rectified. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the third respondent-insurer that the functional
disability fixed by the Tribunal as 8% is quite reasonable in the
light of the injuries sustained by him and therefore there is no
infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.
11.1. The materials on record show that the claim
petitioner sustained the following injuries-
"1) Grade -I compression fracture D12 and L2
2) Abrasion left leg
3) Pain back and left leg.
4) Swelling left leg."
11.2. Ext.C1 certificate reads thus-
"DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD CERTIFICATE
Certified that we the members of the Disability Assessment
Board at Govt.Medical College Hospital, Thrissur
examined Sri.P.R.Venkitachalam Son of Thankam aged 57
years residing at House No.2/22 Village Kollengode Taluk
Chittur District Palakkad and found that he has disability
percentage as follows :-
2025:KER:67859
Board Members
Department % of Nature of Name & Signature
disabilit Disability Designatio
y n
Neuro
Surgery
Orthopaedics 20% Permanent Dr.Dennis
Antony
Asso
Professor
of Ortho
Ophthalmolo
gy
ENT
Psychiatry
Plastic
Surgery/Gen.
Surgery/Urol
ogy
OMFS
Other - - Dr.C.P.
Specialities Muraly
RMO.
Total whole body permanent disability is calculated
using the Combination Formula as 20% (words) Twenty
percent."
It is not discernible from Ext.C1 as to how this 20% disability
was assessed or the difficulties that is faced by the claim
petitioner, who is stated to be running a hotel. In such
2025:KER:67859
circumstances, the percentage of functional disability that is fixed
by the Tribunal as 8% in the light of the dictum in Rajkumar v.
Ajay Kumar, AIR Online 2010 SC 125 is quite reasonable and
does not call for any interference by this Court.
12. The impugned Award is modified to the
following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
Tribunal
(in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Loss of earning 1,50,000/- 28,000/- 42,000/-
(10,500/- x 4)
2. Transportation 15,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-
to hospital (No modification)
3. Damage to 3,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
clothing and (No modification)
articles
4. Extra 10,000/- 2,000/- 2,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
5. Bystander's Nil 1,500/- 2,250/-
expenses
(450/- x 5)
6. Treatment Nil 12,969/- 12,969/-
expenses (No modification)
7. Compensation Nil 20,000/- 20,000/-
for pain and (No modification)
suffering
8. Compensation Nil 73,920/- 1,10,880/-
2025:KER:67859
for loss of (10,500/- x 12 x
future earning 11 x 8/100)
power
9. Compensation Nil 10,000/- 10,000/-
for loss of (No modification)
amenities and
enjoyment in
life
Total 1,54,389/- 2,06,099/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹51,710/- (total
compensation = ₹2,06,099/- that is, ₹1,54,389/- granted by the
Tribunal + ₹51,710/- 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 51 days delay in filing the appeal) and
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.
2025:KER:67859
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
Jms
