Kerala High Court
Assan Kutty vs New India Assurance Company Ltd on 17 September, 2025
2025:KER:69185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947
MACA NO. 460 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 16.07.2019 IN OPMV NO.498 OF
2018 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VATAKARA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ASSAN KUTTY
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.POKKAR, THAROL HOUSE, P.O.POONATH, KOTTUR,
QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE-673614.
BY ADV SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
AL-MUBARACK BUILDING, EDODI, VATAKARA-673101,
KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER.
BY ADV SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69185
MACA NO. 460 OF 2020
2
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.460 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th 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.498/2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Vatakara, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation
granted by Award dated 16/07/2019. The sole respondent herein is
the second 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 16/11/2016 at
about 09:30 a.m., while he was travelling in motorcycle bearing
registration no.KL-56-J 6701 from the place by name Kootalida to
Poonath and when he reached the place by name Pachayi Thazham,
2025:KER:69185
MACA NO. 460 OF 2020
autorickshaw bearing registration no.KL-56-N-5231 driven by the
first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down,
as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of
₹4,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending
vehicle remained ex parte.
4. The second 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 first respondent.
The age, occupation and income of the claim petitioner were
disputed. It was also contended that the compensation claimed was
quite excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by
either side. Exts.A1 to A6 series and Ext.C1 were marked on the
side of the claim petitioner and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of
the second respondent/insurer.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary
2025:KER:69185
MACA NO. 460 OF 2020
evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part
of the first respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle
resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of
₹2,47,700/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date
of the petition till realization 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 was conducting a stationery business and was earning
₹30,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional
2025:KER:69185
MACA NO. 460 OF 2020
income at ₹8,000/-, which is quite low going by the dictum in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236. Hence, the same needs to be
appropriately enhanced.
9.1. There are no materials on record to show the income of
the claim petitioner. However, in the light of the dictum in
Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income is fixed as ₹10,500/-
per month.
Pain and suffering
10. The materials on record show that following injuries
were sustained by the claim petitioner:
"1) open knee and comminuted fracture right pattella.
2) fracture lateral malleolus right.
3) fracture 5th metacarpal.
4) fracture 4th and 5th metatarsal."
He was hospitalized for a period of 9 days and had undergone
one surgery. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I
find that an amount of ₹75,000/- under this head would be just and
2025:KER:69185
MACA NO. 460 OF 2020
reasonable.
Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life
11. Though an amount of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed, the
Tribunal awarded an amount of ₹30,000/- only. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, an amount of ₹40,000/- under this head
would be just and reasonable.
12. 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 earning 1,80,000/- 48,000/- 63,000/-
(8,000 x 6) (10,500 x 6)
2. Transport to hospital 25,000/- 4,000/- 4,000/-
(No Modification)
3. Extra nourishment & 75,000/- 8,100/- 8,100/-
bystanders expenses (No Modification)
4. Medical expenses 50,000/- 24,222/- 24,222/-
(No Modification)
5. Damage to clothing 2,500/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
and articles (No Modification)
6. Pain & suffering 1,00,000/- 60,000/- 75,000/-
7. Loss of amenities and 1,00,000/- 30,000/- 40,000/-
enjoyment of life
2025:KER:69185
MACA NO. 460 OF 2020
8. Future treatment 40,000/- Nil Nil
(No Modification)
9. Permanent disability 2,50,000/- 63,360/- 83,160/-
(8,000 x 12 x (10,500 x 12 x 11
11 x 6/100) x 6/100)
10. Loss of earning 1,50,000/- Nil Nil
power (No Modification)
11. Attendance at home - 9,000/- 9,000/-
(No Modification)
12. Loss of expectation 2,00,000/- Nil Nil
of life (No Modification)
13. Partial loss of earning 1,80,000/- Nil Nil
(No Modification)
Total 13,52,500/- 2,47,682/- 3,07,482/-
limited to rounded to
4,00,000/- 2,47,700/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹59,782/- (total
compensation = ₹3,07,482/- that is, ₹2,47,700/- granted by the
Tribunal plus ₹59,782/- 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 85 days delay in filing the appeal) and
proportionate costs. The second respondent/insurer is directed to
deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of
2025:KER:69185
MACA NO. 460 OF 2020
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
