[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sajeev vs Sasi (Died)* on 7 January, 2026

                                                  2026:KER:614

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 17TH POUSHA,

                               1947

                     MACA NO. 2699 OF 2014

        AGAINST THE AWARD DATED IN OPMV NO.476 OF 2009 OF

MOTOR    ACCIDENT   CLAIMS   TRIBUNAL/RENT   CONTROL   APPELLATE

AUTHORITY, IRINJALAKUDA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

              SAJEEV
              AGED 42 YEARS
              S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KONAI HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR VILLAGE,
              EDAKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.


              BY ADV SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1         SASI (DIED)
              S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AINIKKAL HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR
              DISTRICT.

    2         SUNILKUMAR KUTTAPPAN
              KALIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PORATHODU DESOM, PORATHUSSERY
              VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

    3         THE MANAGER
              UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, P.B.NO.66,
              ALENGADEN BUILDINGS, TANA, IRINJALAKUDA.

    4         BINDU SASI
              W/O SASI, AINIKKAL HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR
              DISTRICT - 680662

    5         YADHU KRISHNA
              S/O.SASI, AINIKKAL HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR
              DISTRICT, PIN - 680662
                                              2026:KER:614
                             2
MACA NO. 2699 OF 2014



     6       VIDHU KRISHNA
             S/O.SASI, AINIKKAL HOUSE, VELLANGALLUR, THRISSUR
             DISTRICT, PIN - 680662
             (LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.1 ARE IMPLEADED
             AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 AS PER ORDER DATED
             25.03.2025 IN IA.1/2022)


             BY ADV SHRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                            2026:KER:614
                                     3
MACA NO. 2699 OF 2014



                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.476

of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Irinjalakuda, claiming enhancement of compensation. The

respondents herein were the respondents before the

tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 09.12.2008 at

about 6:30 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle

bearing Reg.No.KL-8/P-7163 through Edakulam-Aripalam

public road, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-45/2532

driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner

came through the wrong side and hit against the claimant's

motorcycle and thereby the claimant sustained serious

injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming a total

compensation of ₹4,80,000/- which was limited to

₹4,50,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents being the

registered owner and the driver of the offending vehicle,

remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The third

respondent-insurer filed a written statement before the

tribunal admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of 2026:KER:614

MACA NO. 2699 OF 2014

compensation claimed. Exts.A1 to A12 and Ext.B1 were

marked. PWs 1 to 3 were examined. The tribunal, after

analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a

sum of ₹1,07,930/- after deducting 30% towards

contributory negligence as compensation under different

heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of

petition till realization with proportionate costs from

respondent-insurer and recover the same from the first

respondent-owner. Dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has

come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance

company. Though notice was served on additional

respondents 4 to 6, they chose not to appear before this

Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims

enhancement mainly under the following heads :-

Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel appearing

for the claimant/appellant submitted that, due to the injury,

the appellant had taken 5 and a half months' commuted 2026:KER:614

MACA NO. 2699 OF 2014

leave immediately after the accident and that no

compensation was awarded by the tribunal for the loss of

commuted leave. The learned counsel further submitted

that he could have utilised the said leave for some other

purpose had the accident not occured. PW1 was examined

to prove his case. PW2, the Manager of the bank where the

claimant was working, was also examined, and he has

stated that the appellant had taken commuted leave for 5

and a half months. A11 discharge summary does not advise

any long rest. On a perusal of the deposition of PW1, it is

not clear why he had taken leave for 5 and a half months.

Following were the injuries sustained: (1) lacerated wound

in (R) little toe, (2) bimalleolar fracture (L) dislocated, (3)

fracture (R) clavicle. However, considering the fact that

there was a fracture of the right clavicle and that he was

working as a clerk in the bank, I deem it appropriate to

award a consolidated amount of ₹30,000/- as compensation

for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellant will be

entitled to get a total compensation of ₹30,000/- towards

loss of earnings.

2026:KER:614

MACA NO. 2699 OF 2014

Permanent disability :- The learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that as per Ext.A9 disability certificate,

the percentage of disability was assessed as 12%. However,

the tribunal has reduced the percentage of disability to 3%.

On a perusal of Ext.A9 disability certificate, it is seen that

the doctor has given reasons for assessing the disability as

12%. Considering the injuries sustained and the certificate

issued, I find that the reasoning of the tribunal does not

appear to be acceptable in view of the judgment of the apex

court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) KLT 620 SC]

and this Court in Manikantan G. v. K.Janardhanan Nair.

Therefore, I find it appropriate to re-fix the disability as

12%. On a perusal of the award it is seen that the tribunal

has adopted the multiplier as 15. The claimant was aged 42

at the time of the accident. Following the judgment in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT

802(SC)], I find that the multiplier to be adopted is '14' and

not '15'. Therefore, 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 compensation 2026:KER:614

MACA NO. 2699 OF 2014

payable towards permanent disability is re-calculated thus:

₹4,03,200/- (20,000 x 12 x 14 x 12/100). The tribunal has

awarded an amount of ₹1,08,000/- under the afore head.

Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹2,95,200/-

under the head permanent disability.

Pain and sufferings :- The learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the tribunal awarded an amount of

₹10,000/- towards the head pain and suffering, which is on

the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained, I am

inclined to grant an additional amount of ₹10,000/-

totalling to an amount of ₹20,000/- under the afore head.

Loss of amenities :- The tribunal has awarded an

amount of ₹10,000/- under the head loss of amenities.

Considering the age of the appellant as well as the loss of

enjoyment in life, I find that an amount of ₹20,000/- can be

awarded under the afore head. Thus, there will be an

additional amount of ₹10,000/- under the head loss of

amenities.

6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of

compensation under the other heads, on a perusal of the 2026:KER:614

MACA NO. 2699 OF 2014

records available, I am not inclined to interfere with the

compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads

since it appears to be just and reasonable. Since the appeal

is of the year 2014, I find it appropriate to fix the interest @

6% per annum on the enhanced amount.

7. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the tribunal has found 30% contributory

negligence on the part of the claimant in causing the

accident. The learned counsel further submitted that he was

travelling from south to north and that the correct side was

on the western side. Even going by the scene mahazar also,

the road was having a width of 3.75 m and the accident

occurred 1.75 m towards the east from the western tar end,

which reveals that the accident occurred on the correct side

of the claimant. Moreover, the learned counsel further

submitted that, as per Ext. A6 judgment, the charge sheet

drawn against the claimant resulted in his acquittal.

However, considering the aforesaid facts, I find that the

finding of 30% contributory negligence on the part of the

appellant is not justifiable. Accordingly, the contributory

negligence of 30% on the part of the claimant is set aside, 2026:KER:614

MACA NO. 2699 OF 2014

and I find that the insurance company is liable to pay the

entire amount awarded by the tribunal and to further

recover the said amount from additional respondents 4 to 6,

who are the legal heirs of the first respondent, since there

was no valid driving licence for the driver of the vehicle.

8. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is

modified as follows:-

Sl.

No Head of Amount Amount Modified in Total Claim claimed awarded appeal compensation by the tribunal 1 Loss of 1,80,000 Nil 30,000 30,000 earnings

2 Transport to 5,000 500 Not modified 500 hospital 3 Extra 1,000 500 Not modified 500 nourishment 4 Damage to 4,000 500 Not modified 500 clothing 5 Medical 50,000 23,480 Not modified 23,480 expenses 6 Bystander 10,000 1,200 Not modified 1,200 expenses 7 Pain and 25,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 suffering 8 Permanent 1,50,000 1,08,000 2,95,200 4,03,200 disability 9 Loss of 25,000 Nil Nil Nil earning power 10 Loss of 20,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 amenities 11 Mental agony 10,000 Nil Nil Nil and unhappiness TOTAL 4,80,000 1,54,180 3,45,200 4,99,380 limited to 4,50,000 2026:KER:614

MACA NO. 2699 OF 2014

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part as follows:

1. The finding of the tribunal attributing 30%

contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is

set aside and the appellant is entitled to get the entire

compensation assessed by the tribunal with interest

@7.5% per annum.

2. The appellant/claimant is awarded an additional

compensation of ₹3,45,200/- (Rupees Three lakhs

Forty Five thousand Two hundred only) over and

above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with

interest @6% per annum from the date of petition till

realization and proportionate costs.

3. The respondent 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 shall recover the said amount from

additional respondents 4 to 6, who are the legal heirs

of the first respondent.

4. The appellant/claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN

Card, ADHAAR Card and bank details before the

respondent insurer within a period of one month so as 2026:KER:614

MACA NO. 2699 OF 2014

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 before the tribunal. Upon

such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be

disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in

accordance with law.