Kerala High Court
Sajeev S vs Tomy on 19 September, 2025
2025:KER:70058
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. 1435 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.11.2019 IN OPMV NO.528 OF
2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SAJEEV S.
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.SALEEM @ HASSAN RAWTHER, DHARIYA MANZIL
(NAVAROJI PURAYIDOM TAPAL PARAMBU), LAJANATH WARD,
ZACHIRA BAZAR, ALAPPUZHA.
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.A.R.DILEEP
SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
SRI.MANU SRINATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 TOMY
S/O.OUSEPH ABRAHAM, 368/ANJILIKADU, 4TH WARD,
VARANAD P.O., THANNEERMUKKAM, CHERTHALA-688539.
2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE,
ALAPPUZHA-688001.
BY ADV SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 19.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:70058
MACA NO. 1435 OF 2020
2
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.1435 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th 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.528/2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Alappuzha, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 20/11/2019. The respondents
herein are respondents 1 and 2 respectively 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 27/05/2013 while
he was riding his motorcycle through the public road at the place by
name Thumboli, car bearing registration no.KL.13.L.6654 driven
by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him
2025:KER:70058
MACA NO. 1435 OF 2020
down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A sum of
₹2,00,000/- was claimed as compensation under various heads.
3. The first respondent/owner-cum-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.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement
admitting the existence of a valid policy in respect of the offending
vehicle. The age, occupation, income and injuries of the claim
petitioner were disputed. It was also contended that the amount
claimed as compensation was quite excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to
A13 and Exts.X1 and X2 were marked on the side of the claim
petitioner. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found
negligence on the part of the first respondent/owner-cum-driver of
2025:KER:70058
MACA NO. 1435 OF 2020
the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded
an amount of ₹3,37,634/- together with interest @ 9% 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, aged 34 years, conducting catering business, was
earning ₹12,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the
notional income at ₹6,500/- which is quite low and hence the same
may be enhanced.
2025:KER:70058
MACA NO. 1435 OF 2020
9.1. Going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance 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. In the absence of any other better materials on
record, the notional income is fixed as ₹9,000/- per month.
Percentage of disability
10. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner submitted
that in the light of Ext.X1 disability certificate, which has fixed the
disability as 21%, the Tribunal was not justified in scaling it down
to 10%. Hence, the same has to be fixed according to Ext.X1.
10.1. The materials on record show that following injuries
were sustained by the claim petitioner:
"1) lacerated wound scalp 3x1 cm.
2) contusion left ankle.
3) displaced fracture of non-union with preserved
vascularity in both the fracture fragment.
4) fracture tallus left"
2025:KER:70058
MACA NO. 1435 OF 2020
10.2. Ext.X1 disability certificate reads thus:
"We the members of the Medical Board, Govt.
T.D. Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha have
examined Sri. SAJEEV.S, S/o Saleem @ Hassan
Rawther aged 37 yrs residing at Dhariya Manzil
(Navarojipurayidam, Lajanath Ward, Tapal Parambu)
Zhacharia Bazar, Alappuzha and found him a person
with disability by reason of physical impairment
following a RTA on 27/05/13, having sustained:
1) Comminuted fracture talus left.
Treated initialy with External fixation 27/05/2013. Later
patient developed secondary osteoarthritis left Ankle for
which he underwent Arthrodesis of left Ankle.
As per the scale by Minisitry of Social Justice and
Empowerment patient has 21% of permanent disability
considering body as whole.
The disability is temporary/permanent nature and
progressive/partial/total degree of disability having been
found as 21% (Twenty one percentage)."
It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the second
respondent/insurer that in the light of the disability sustained, the
functional disability can be fixed as 13%. Taking into account the
injuries sustained and the avocation of the claim petitioner, I find
that the functional disability of the claim petitioner can be fixed as
13%.
2025:KER:70058
MACA NO. 1435 OF 2020
Compensation for pain & sufferings
11. Though an amount of ₹40,000/- was claimed, the
Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹30,000/-. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, I find that the amount of ₹40,000/- as
claimed under this head can be granted.
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 ₹)
PART-I
a) Loss of earnings 54,000/- 45,500/- 63,000/-
(6,500 x 7) (9,000 x 7)
b) Transport to hospital 10,000/- 8,000/- 8,000/-
(No Modification)
c) Expenses for 15,000/- 1,02,334/- 1,02,334/-
treatment and (No Modification)
medicine
d) Damage to clothing 1,000/- 1,000/- 1,000/-
(No Modification)
e) Bystander expenses 4,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/-
(No Modification)
f) Extra nourishment 10,000/- 3,000/- 3,000/-
charges (No Modification)
2025:KER:70058
MACA NO. 1435 OF 2020
PART-II
g) Compensation for 40,000/- 30,000/- 40,000/-
pain & sufferings
h) Compensation for 60,000/- 1,24,800/- 2,24,640/-
permanent disability (6,500x12x (9,000x12x
and loss of earning 16x10/100) 16x13/100)
power
i) Loss of amenities 20,000/- 20,000/- 20,000/-
(No Modification)
Total 2,14,000/- 3,37,634/- 4,64,974/-
limited to
2,00,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹1,27,340/- (total
compensation = ₹4,64,974/- that is, ₹3,37,634/- granted by the
Tribunal plus ₹1,27,340/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate
of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization
and proportionate costs. The second 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
2025:KER:70058
MACA NO. 1435 OF 2020
deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
NP
