Kerala High Court

Muraleedharan vs Prince on 25 September, 2025

                                                       2025:KER:71247
MACA Nos.2791 & 1090 of 2015
                                        ..1..

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

     THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947

                               MACA NO. 2791 OF 2015

    OPMV NO.617 OF 2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

             MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS
             S/O. BALAN, MANIYALATH HOUSE, NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI
             P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADV SRI.K.MOHAMMED FAISAL NAHA


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

     1       PRINCE, AGED 28 YEARS
             S/O. N.V.GEORGE, NEDUMPAMPAKKUDA HOUSE, PAMPAKUDA,
             MUVATTUPUZHA-667.

     2       ABDUL BASHEER N., S/O. ABDULLA N., DRIVER, NATTIYAL
             HOUSE, NEDUVA, P.O.PARAPPANANGADI, PIN-676 303.

     3       RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
             2ND FLOOR, VISHNU BUILDING, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.P.JACOB
             SHRI.K.B.RAMANAND



      THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 17.09.2025 ALONG WITH MACA.1090/2015, THE COURT ON 25.09.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                        2025:KER:71247
MACA Nos.2791 & 1090 of 2015
                                        ..2..


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

     THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947

                               MACA NO. 1090 OF 2015

    OPMV NO.617 OF 2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             PRINCE, AGED 29 YEARS, NEDUMPAMPAKKUDA HOUSE,
             PAMBAKKADA, MOOVATTUPUZHA 686 667

             BY ADV SRI.P.P.JACOB


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1       ABDUL BASHEER N
             S/O.ABDULLA N., NATTINGAL HOUSE, NEDUVA
             P.O.PARAPPANANGADI- 676 303.

     2       MURALEEDHARAN SO.BALAN, 6/402, MANIYALATH HOUSE, NEDUVA
             P.O., PARAPPANANGADI- 676 303.

     3       THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
             IIND FLOOR, VISHNU BUILDING, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI 682020.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.K.MOHAMMED FAISAL NAHA
             SHRI.K.B.RAMANAND


      THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 17.09.2025 ALONG WITH MACA.2791/2015, THE COURT ON 25.09.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                   2025:KER:71247
MACA Nos.2791 & 1090 of 2015
                                        ..3..



                                   JUDGMENT

These appeals arose from the impugned award dated

15.01.2015 in OP(MV) No.617 of 2013 on the files of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. MACA No.1090 of 2015 has been filed

by the claimant, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the

tribunal. MACA No.2791 of 2015 has been filed by the owner of the

offending vehicle, challenging the right of recovery granted to the

insurer against him.

2. Since the parties and the cause of action are the same,

the appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment.

For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the

tribunal.

3. The case of the claimant is that on 28.03.2009, while

he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-17-F-1956 from

Peruvazhiyambalam to Tirur, a pick-up van bearing Reg.No.KL-10-V-

2262 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit

the motorcycle, whereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached

the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹3,00,000/-.

4. Respondents 1 and 2/driver and owner of the offending 2025:KER:71247 MACA Nos.2791 & 1090 of 2015 ..4..

vehicle respectively filed a written statement, denying negligence. The

third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy

coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and

quantum of compensation claimed. It was also contended that the driver

of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence to drive medium

goods vehicles. Exts.A1 to A10, C1 and B1 to B4 were marked. The

tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held

that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver

of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹1,47,280/- as

compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from

the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being

the insurer. However, the respondent insurer was granted a right of

recovery against the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle,

for violation of provisions of law on the ground that the first

respondent/driver of the offending vehicle had no licence to drive the

offending vehicle, which was a medium goods vehicle. The claimant has

come up in appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded and the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle has

come up challenging the right of recovery granted to the insurer.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant,

learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Standing 2025:KER:71247 MACA Nos.2791 & 1090 of 2015 ..5..

Counsel for the respondent insurer.

6. The learned counsel for the second respondent/owner

of the offending vehicle, assailed the impugned award, stating that the

tribunal went wrong in holding that the first respondent/driver was not

having a valid licence to drive the offending vehicle and in granting a

right of recovery to the insurer. According to the learned counsel,

though the offending vehicle is a medium goods vehicle, the driving

licence that the driver possessed to drive a transport vehicle of such

type as on the date of the accident, was enough and valid to drive the

medium goods vehicle.

7. The learned counsel for the second respondent/owner

argued that since the unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7500 kg,

the first respondent, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, was

licensed to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.

Relying on the judgment of the apex court in Mukund Dewangan v.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2017 (4) KHC 648 (SC)], the learned

counsel submitted that a driver, who is having a licence to drive 'light

motor vehicle' and is driving 'transport vehicle' of that class, is not

required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport

vehicle. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer, on the other 2025:KER:71247 MACA Nos.2791 & 1090 of 2015 ..6..

hand, submitted that the offending vehicle was a 'medium goods

vehicle' and it cannot be considered as a 'light motor vehicle' in order to

claim the benefit of the judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra).

8. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both

sides. A perusal of Ext.B3 details of registration of the offending vehicle

shows that the vehicle owned by the appellant is classified as Medium

Goods Vehicle-Tipper, not a light motor vehicle, however, the unladen

weight of the offending vehicle is 3155 kg. A light motor vehicle is also a

transport vehicle if the gross vehicle weight or unladen weight does not

exceed 7500 kg. In the present case, the unladen weight of the vehicle

involved is less than 7500 kg. In this context, it is appropriate to

consider 'light motor vehicle' and 'medium goods vehicle' as defined in

the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"). Section 2(21)

of the Act reads as follows:

"(21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms;"

Section 2(23) of the Act reads as follows:

"(23) "medium goods vehicle" means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle;"

9. Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was having 2025:KER:71247 MACA Nos.2791 & 1090 of 2015 ..7..

a valid licence only to drive light motor vehicles, not medium goods

vehicles. Ext.B3 registration details reveal that the offending vehicle is a

Medium Goods Vehicle-Tipper. Hence, it does not come under the category

of 'light motor vehicle' as defined in the Act though the unladen weight was

less than 7500 kg. Since the vehicle involved in the accident was a medium

goods vehicle and the driver was having licence only to drive a light motor

vehicle, I hold that the tribunal was right in finding that the driver was not

having a valid licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the

accident and in granting a right of recovery to the insurer, against the

owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the second

respondent/owner of the offending vehicle fails.

10. The learned counsel for the claimant claimed

enhancement of compensation under the following heads:

10.1 Notional income - The learned counsel for the

claimant submitted that the claimant was a Sales Representative and

was earning ₹6,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has fixed the

monthly income notionally at ₹4,000/-, which is on the lower side. Even

going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236],

the monthly income of the claimant ought to have been fixed at ₹7,000/-

2025:KER:71247 MACA Nos.2791 & 1090 of 2015 ..8..

for an accident occured in the year 2009. Accordingly, in order to award

a just and reasonable compensation, following the judgment in

Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly

income of the claimant at ₹7,000/-.

10.2. Loss of earnings - Since the monthly income of the

claimant is refixed at ₹7,000/-, compensation towards loss of earnings

for a period of eight months has to be recalculated, which would come

to ₹56,000/-. Thus, the claimant will be entitled to get an additional

compensation of ₹32,000/- towards loss of earnings.

10.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the

claimant submitted that the tribunal awarded only ₹25,000/- towards

pain and suffering, which is on the lower side. Considering the injuries

sustained by him and the sufferings that he had undergone, I am

inclined to grant an amount of ₹30,000/- to the claimant as total

compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the claimant will be

entitled to get an additional amount of ₹5,000/- as compensation

towards pain and suffering.

10.4. Loss of amenities - The learned counsel for the

claimant submitted that the tribunal has not awarded compensation

towards loss of amenities. Considering the injuries sustained by the 2025:KER:71247 MACA Nos.2791 & 1090 of 2015 ..9..

claimant, I deem it appropriate to award a compensation of ₹25,000/-

towards loss of amenities.

10.5. Permanent disability - Since the monthly income of

the claimant is refixed at ₹7,000/-, compensation towards permanent

disability has to be recalculated. Accordingly, following the judgments

in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT

662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2)

KLT 802(SC)], the claimant will be entitled to get a total compensation

of ₹1,14,240/- (7000 x 12 x 17 x 8%) towards permanent disability. It is

seen that the tribunal awarded ₹65,280/- and ₹25,000/- under the heads,

permanent disability and loss of earning power. Thus, after deducting

the said amounts, there will be an additional amount of ₹23,960/- under

this head.

11. Though the claimant claimed enhancement of

compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records

available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with

the same since it appears to be just and reasonable.

12. Since the appeal filed by the claimant is of the year

2015, I fix the interest on the enhanced compensation @ 8% per annum

from the date of the claim petition till realization. Thus, the impugned 2025:KER:71247 MACA Nos.2791 & 1090 of 2015 ..10..

award of the tribunal is modified as follows:

Sl.

 No.       Head of Claim       Amount         Amount        Modified       Total
                               claimed        awarded      in appeal    compensation
                                 (in ₹)        by the         (in ₹)       (in ₹)
                                              tribunal
                                                (in ₹)
 1.      Loss of earnings       24000          24000        32000          56000
 2.      Medical &              28000              -          -              -
         miscellaneous
         expenses
 3.      Bystander              2000               2000        -            2000
         expenses
 4.      Transportation         3000               3000        -            3000
         expenses
 5.      Extra nourishment      2000               2000        -            2000
 6.      Damage to              1000               1000        -            1000
         clothing
 7.      Pain and suffering     20000              25000     5000          30000
 8.      Permanent                -                65280
         disability
 9.      Loss of earning       150000              25000    23960          114240
         power
 10.     Loss of amenities        -              -          25000          25000
         Total                 300000         147280        85960         233240

Accordingly, the following orders are issued:

a) MACA No. 2791 of 2015 is dismissed.

b) MACA No. 1090 of 2015 is allowed in part and the claimant is

awarded an additional compensation of ₹85,960/- (Rupees eighty

five thousand nine hundred and sixty only) over and above the 2025:KER:71247 MACA Nos.2791 & 1090 of 2015 ..11..

compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 8% per

annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate

costs.

c) The insurer shall deposit the said amounts together with interest

and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of

a certified copy of this judgment and recover the same from the

second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle.

d) The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card

and bank details before the insurer within a period of one month

so as to enable the insurance company to make the deposit as

ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall

be open for the insurance company to deposit the said amount