Kerala High Court
P.N.Komalam vs Rajesh on 3 November, 2025
MACA NOs. 1243 & 3076 OF 2016
1
2025:KER:82955
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1947
MACA NO. 1243 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.02.2015 IN OP(MV) NO.683 OF 2014 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-
RAJESH, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, AYAKKODE HOUSE
THENNILAPURAM P.O., THENNILAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-
1 P.N.KOMALAM, W/O.SIVARAMAN, 5/139, NOKKARA HOUSE,
VALLANAPARA, KAVASSERY P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678543.
2 CHANDRAN PADMANABHAN
S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, PALAKKAL HOUSE,
THEKKUMURI KAZHANI, KAVASSERY P.O.,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678543.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR-688001.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.BABU KUMAR
SHRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN
SRI.VISHNU BABU
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 03.11.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.3076/2016, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NOs. 1243 & 3076 OF 2016
2
2025:KER:82955
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1947
MACA NO. 3076 OF 2016
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.02.2015 IN OP(MV) NO.683 OF
2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 :-
1 P.N.KOMALAM, W/O SIVARAMAN, 5/139, NOKKARA
HOUSE,VALLANAPARA, KAVASSERY PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 CHANDRAN PADMANABHAN, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN,
PALAKKAL HOUSE, THEKKUMURI,KAZHANI, KAVASSERY PO,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.P.BABU KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 3RD RESPONDENT :-
1 RAJESH, S/O PRABHAKARAN, AYAKKODE HOUSE,
THENNILAPURAM PO, THENNILPURAM,PALAKKAD.
2 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COTD
PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
SHRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 03.11.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.1243/2016, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NOs. 1243 & 3076 OF 2016
3
2025:KER:82955
JUDGMENT
Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated 25.02.2015 in O.P.(MV) No.683 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.1243 of 2016 is filed by the appellant/claimant in the O.P seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas MACA No.3076 of 2016 is filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P challenging the liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
2. According to the claimant, on 03.02.2006 at about 5.00 p.m., a tractor loaded with granite driven by the 2 nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down while the claimant was working in a quarry. As a result of the accident, claimant had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹2,39,500/-.
3. The respondents 1 and 2/the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively filed a written statement admitting the accident but denied the allegation that it occurred due to the MACA NOs. 1243 & 3076 OF 2016 4 2025:KER:82955 negligence of the 2nd respondent/driver. The 3rd respondent-insurer admitted the policy but disputed the wound certificate and contended that the registered owner of the vehicle alone was liable to compensate the petitioner. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 and Exts.B1 to B11 were marked and Pws 1 and 2 were examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹2,38,450/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 1st respondent/owner. Challenging the liability and dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the owner and the claimant respectively have come up in these appeals respectively.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the owner.
Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹7,500/- was claimed, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹5,000/- as the monthly income of the injured who was a headload worker. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that, as per the MACA NOs. 1243 & 3076 OF 2016 5 2025:KER:82955 judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [2011 (13) SCC 236], the income of a coolie for an accident in the year 2006 is fixed at ₹5,500/- per month and sought for enhancement of fixation of monthly income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), in order to award a just compensation, I find it is appropriate to refix the monthly income as ₹5,500/-.
Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the tribunal has taken only a period of six months for awarding compensation under the said head and sought enhancement of compensation. The claimant sustained fracture of shaft of femur right and fracture of shaft of humerus right. Considering the nature of injuries sustained as well as age of the appellant, I am inclined to take a period of eight months for awarding compensation under the afore head. Since the monthly income is refixed at ₹5,500/-, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings, is recalculated thus: ₹44,000/- (5,500x8). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹15,000/- towards loss of earnings and ₹3,750/- towards partial loss of earnings. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹25,250/- under the head loss MACA NOs. 1243 & 3076 OF 2016 6 2025:KER:82955 of earnings.
Extra nourishment :- The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards extra nourishment. Considering the nature of injuries sustained as well as the age of the appellant, I find that a consolidated amount of ₹2,000/- can be awarded under the said head.
Pain and sufferings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹20,000/- was claimed, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹15,000/- under the head pain and sufferings. Considering the nature of injuries sustained as well as the age of the appellant, I find that a total amount of ₹40,000/- can be awarded under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹25,000/- under the afore head.
Loss of earning power/Permanent Disability :- The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the injured was 21 years old at the time of the accident and that the appropriate multiplier to be adopted was 18. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal has adopted 17 instead of 18. The claimant was aged 21 years at the time of the accident and according to the judgment of the apex court in Sarla Verma v.
MACA NOs. 1243 & 3076 OF 2016
7
2025:KER:82955
Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the
multiplier to be adopted is '18' and not '17'. Since the monthly income has been refixed as ₹5,500/-, following the judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma (Supra), the compensation towards permanent disability is recalculated as: ₹1,78,200/- (5,500x12x18x15/100). The tribunal has granted an amount of ₹1,33,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹45,200/- under the afore head.
5. Though the claimant claimed enhancement of compensation under the other heads, on a perusal of the 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 2016, I find it appropriate to fix the interest @8% per annum on the enhanced amount.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the owner submitted that the insurance company was exonerated from the liability only for the reason that the accident happened while the petitioner was doing work in the crusher unit. It is further submitted that the MACA NOs. 1243 & 3076 OF 2016 8 2025:KER:82955 finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred in a private place and directing the owner/1st respondent to pay the compensation is erroneous on the basis of the settled position on this point.
The fact that the injury sustained by the hit of the tractor is not disputed. The dispute is in respect of the place where the accident occurred. According to the claimant, the accident occurred in a quarry premises whereas the insurer contends that it happened while the claimant was standing inside the private property.
7. The public place is defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as follows :-
Section 2(34) : "public place" means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage.
8. This Court in Rajan P v. K.J.John and others [2009 (1) KHC 631], Parukutty and others v. K.P.Joseph and others [2015 KHC 3701] and Anoop Paul v. M.P. Cherian (2025 KHC 981), had considered a similar issue wherein the injury was sustained to a headload worker while the marble was being unloaded in the house premises of a person. This Court held that public place for the MACA NOs. 1243 & 3076 OF 2016 9 2025:KER:82955 purpose of the Act is to be understood with reference to places to which a vehicle has access and whether the public actually has access thereto is of no consequence and has widened the definition of the public place and held that for the purpose of this act private places includes where there is entry to the public vehicles. Since it has already been found by this Court that the crusher unit is a public place and not a private one, as vehicles enter into and exit from the crusher unit, I find that the crusher unit being a public place, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from liability. Accordingly, the finding of the tribunal exonerating the insurance company from the liability is liable to be set aside. The insurer is liable to pay the entire compensation awarded by the tribunal along with the enhanced amount now awarded by this court.
9. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows:-
Sl.
No Head of Claim Amount Amount Modified in Total
claimed awarded by appeal compensation
the tribunal
1 Loss of earnings 25,000 15,000
25,250 44,000
2 Partial loss of 3,750
earning
MACA NOs. 1243 & 3076 OF 2016
10
2025:KER:82955
3 Medical expenses 8,500 7,500 (not modified) 7,500
4 Bystander expenses 5,000 2,200 (not modified) 2,200
5 Damage to clothing 1,000 250 (not modified) 250
6 Transportation 3,000 1,750 (not modified) 1,750
7 Extra nourishment 2,000 - 2,000 2,000
8 Pain and suffering 20,000 15,000 25,000 40,000
9 Loss of amenities 1,55,00 50,000 (not modified) 50,000
10 Loss of earning - 1,33,000 45,200 1,78,200
power/disability
11 Future treatment 20,000 10,000 (not modified) 10,000
TOTAL 2,39,500 2,38,450 97,450 3,35,900
Accordingly, these appeals are allowed in part as follows:
1. The finding of the tribunal exonerating the insurance company from the liability is hereby set aside. The insurer is directed to pay the entire amount awarded by the tribunal and the enhanced compensation now awarded by this court.
2. The claimant is awarded an additional compensation of ₹97,450/- (Rupees ninety seven thousand four hundred and fifty only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs.
3. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together MACA NOs. 1243 & 3076 OF 2016 11 2025:KER:82955 with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment along with the amount awarded by the tribunal.
4. The claimants shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, ADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to enable the respondent insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the respondent insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the claimant at the earliest in accordance with law.
5. However, it is made clear that the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of 164 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE SMA