Rugmani vs Sajeesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 8975 Ker

Kerala High Court

Rugmani vs Sajeesh on 19 September, 2025

M.A.C.A.No.1377 of 2020
                                     1

                                                     2025:KER:70082

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

    FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 28TH BHADRA, 1947

                          MACA NO. 1377 OF 2020

         AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 03.01.2020 IN OP(MV)NO.1142 OF 2013

ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR.

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             RUGMANI,
             AGED 66 YEARS
             W/O. SREEDHARAN,
             INCHODI HOUSE, P.O. KALLUR,
             NJELLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.


             BY ADV SRI.P.V.CHANDRAMOHAN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1       SAJEESH,
             S/O. SUBRAMANIAN,
             PANIKKASSERY HOUSE,
             P.O. MULLASSERY,
             THRISSUR-680 509.

     2       KIRAN A.R,
             S/O. RAJAN, ANEDATH HOUSE,
             P.O.MULLASSERY,
             THRISSUR-680 509.

     3       THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
             BUSINESS CENTRE, F PCM BUILDING,
             KUNNATHUR, ALTHARA, P.O. PUNNAYURKULAM,
             THRISSUR-679 561.


             BY ADV SMT.P.A.REZIYA
 M.A.C.A.No.1377 of 2020
                                    2

                                                            2025:KER:70082



      THIS    MOTOR   ACCIDENT   CLAIMS   APPEAL   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR
HEARING ON 19.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A.No.1377 of 2020
                                           3

                                                                      2025:KER:70082




                                   C.S.SUDHA, J.
               -----------------------------------------------------------
                            M.A.C.A.No.1377 of 2020
               -----------------------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 19th day of September 2025

                                JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV)

No.1142/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Thrissur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation

granted by Award dated 03/01/2020. The respondents herein are the

respondents 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 15/01/2013 at

about 05:30 a.m., while he was standing at Amballur junction on the

extreme western side of Pudukkad-Paliyekkara NH 47, car bearing

registration No.KL-05-V-9255 driven by the second respondent in a rash

and negligent manner knocked her down, as a result of which she

sustained grievous injuries.

2025:KER:70082

3. The first respondent/owner and the second

respondent/driver 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 of the offending car. It was also contended that the

amount claimed was excessive.

5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by

either side. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claim

petitioner. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of 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 offending car resulting in the

incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹5,54,730/- together with

interest @ 8% per annum from the date of 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

2025:KER:70082

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 notional income of ₹5,500/- fixed for a 59 year old coolie is on

the lower side and hence, the same needs to be appropriately enhanced.

9.1. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236, the

income of a coolie in the year 2013 is liable to be fixed at ₹9,000/- per

month. It is true that the claim petitioner has only claimed an amount of

₹7,500/- as income. However, taking into account the facts and

circumstances of the case, I find that the notional income can be fixed

as ₹9,000/- per month.

Multiplier

10. The claim petitioner was 59 year old at the time of the

incident and therefore, the correct multiplier is '9' and not '8' as taken by

2025:KER:70082

the Tribunal. Therefore, the multiplier to be applied shall be '9'.

The percentage of disability

11. Ext.A5 disability Certificate reads thus-

"DISABILITY CERTIFICATE

Mrs Rukmani, 67 years, Inchody (H) Kaloor PO, Thrissur was examined on 12/03/2019. As per treatment reports (discharge card and wound certificate), the clinet was involved in an alleged history of RTA. Treated at Jubilee Mission Medical College and research institute, DOA: 15/01/2013, DOD:

11/02/2013,H.P No: S044798.

     Injuries

     •          Fracture right clavicle
     •          Fracture both bones right forearm
     •          Fracture right tibia
     •          Fracture right middle finger
     •          Fracture left superior pubic rami
     •          Ascites and pleural effusion right with partial collapse of
                lung

     Treatment details

     •          ORIF Clavicle
     •          ILN right tibia
     •          ORIF right forearm
     •          Removal implant of right ulna followed by nailing
     •          Laprotomy

     On Examination
     Right forearm

     •          Pain and swelling right wrist



                                                            2025:KER:70082

     •          Deformity right wrist
     •          Difficulty in taking weight
     •          Difficulty in eating
     •          Grip strength decreased
     •          Cylindrical grip decreased
     •          Flexion of right elbow decreased by 20%
     •          Supination right forearm decreased by 80%, pronation
               full
     •          Extension at wrist right absent
     •          Right forearm muscle weakness by grade 1
     •          X-ray right forearm non-union right forearm with

implant in situ, malunited ulnar fracture with nail in situ, arthrosis of radio-carpal joint. • X-ray middle finger right: malunited, rotated and angulated right middle phalanx.

     Right tibia and Pubic rami left

     •         Pain right knee joint
     •         Stiffness knee right
     •         Burning sensation right leg
     •         Pain and swelling right calf
     •         Thigh muscle weakness by grade 1
     •         Calf muscle weakness by grade 1
     •         Difficulty in squatting
     •         Difficulty in ascending and descending steps
     •         Difficulty in cross-legged sitting
     •         Flexion of knee decreased by 20%, extension decreased
                by 10%
     •         X-ray right tibia: malunited fracture right tibia and
               fibula with implant in situ.
     •         X-ray pelvis: malunited left superior pubic rami

     Right clavicle and lungs

     •         Pain right shoulder
     •         Recurrent episodes of cough and chest pain



                                                            2025:KER:70082

     •         Exertion dsyponea on during work
     •         Difficulty in lifting weight
     •         Difficulty in overhead abduction
     •         Numbness and paresthesia of right hand on doing
               work
     •         Recurrent
     •         Flexion, extension by 20%, abduction by 30 and

rotation of right shoulder by 20% decreased • X-ray right clavicle: malunited fracture clavicle with implant in situ • Xray chest: patchy opacities of upper and middle lower of lung right side-suggestive of lung injury • Frequent complaints of attacks of abdominal pain, associated with disturbances in bowel (constipation), nausea and vomiting.

     Split up percentages
     "1" Right forearm-24%

     •        Pain and swelling right wrist-1%
     •        Difficulty in taking weight-2%
     •        Difficulty in eating-2%
     •        Grip strength decreased-2%
     •        Cylindrical grip decreased-2%
     •        Supination right forearm decreased by 80%, pronation

full, Extension at wrist right absent-4% • Right forearm muscle weakness by grade 1-3% • non-union right forearm with implant in situ, malunited ulnar fracture with nail in situ, arthrosis of radio-carpal joint-5% • malunited, rotated and angulated right middle phalanx.-3%

2. Right tibia and Pubic rami left-20%

• Pain right knee joint-1% • Burning sensation right leg-1%

2025:KER:70082

• Thigh muscle weakness by grade 1, Calf muscle weakness by grade 1-3% • Difficulty in squatting-2% • Difficulty in ascending and descending steps 2% • Difficulty in cross-legged sitting-2% • Flexion of knee decreased by 20%, extension decreased by 10%-4% • malunited fracture right tibia and fibula -3% • malunited left superior pubic rami-2%

3. malunited fracture clavicle with subjective symptoms of circulatory disturbances-8%

4. Frequent complaints of attacks of abdominal pain, associated with disturbances in bowel constipation), nausea and vomiting-10%

Her whole body permanent disability is assessed to be 45.2% (fourty five decimal two percent) as per manual devised by Ministry Of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. Of India, using combination formulae."

In the light of the dictum in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC

343, it is the functional disability that needs to be fixed for assessing

compensation for permanent disability. Here the claim petitioner is a

coolie and therefore, the difficulties caused, which have been noted in

Ext.A5 disability certificate, would certainly affect the functioning or

her efficiency as coolie and therefore, I find that the functional disability

can be fixed as 50%.