Kerala High Court
Ammini vs Anus on 15 January, 2026
2026:KER:3476
MACA No.2829/2015
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 25TH POUSHA, 1947
MACA NO. 2829 OF 2015
OPMV NO.1161 OF 2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
AMMINI, AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.GOPI, PALAKADIYEL HOUSE, MANNACKANADU KARA,
KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN
SHRI.BABY THOMAS
SMT.BINITHA JAMES
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ANUS, S/O.SYED MOHAMMED, CHANTHUKALPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THALAPPALAM KARA, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT-686575.
2 JOSE, S/O.GEORGE, KUNNEL HOUSE, TEEKOY P.O., PALA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686575.
3 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001.
BY ADV DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
SRI. VPK PANICKER -SC (REPRESENTED)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 15.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3476
MACA No.2829/2015
..2..
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.1161 of 2011 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.
2. The case of the claimant was that on 30.05.2011, while she was walking along the Pala - Kozha road, an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-35-5940 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit her, whereby she sustained serious injuries. She approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹5,00,000/-.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. 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. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A10 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 ₹1,63,350/- as compensation under different heads 2026:KER:3476 MACA No.2829/2015 ..3..
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement under the following heads:
5.1. Notional income - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a daily labourer, however, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income notionally only at ₹5,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], for an accident that occurred in 2011, the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹8,000/- and seeks for an enhancement of the income fixed.
Accordingly, following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the appellant at ₹8,000/-.
2026:KER:3476 MACA No.2829/2015 ..4..
5.2. Loss of earnings - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant could not go to work for almost eight months, however, the tribunal has taken only a period of five months for awarding compensation towards loss of earnings. The appellant sustained severe head injuries including acute intra parenchymal haematoma and acute extra dual haematoma. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the age of the appellant, I am of the opinion that six months can be taken for awarding compensation for loss of earnings. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹48,000/- (8000 x 6) under this head. Thus, there will be an additional compensation of ₹23,000/- towards loss of earnings.
5.3. Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the appellant claimed ₹1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, the tribunal awarded only ₹30,000/-. Considering the injuries sustained by her and the sufferings that she had undergone, I am inclined to grant an amount of ₹40,000/- to the appellant as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹10,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering.
2026:KER:3476 MACA No.2829/2015 ..5..
5.4. Loss of amenities - Though the appellant claimed an amount of ₹1,00,000/- under this head, the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹15,000/-, which, according to the appellant, is on the lower side. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant and the loss of enjoyment in life, I deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of ₹40,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹25,000/- towards loss of amenities.
5.5. Permanent disability - Since the monthly income of the appellant is refixed at ₹8,000/-, compensation towards permanent disability has to be recalculated. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was 52 years old at the time of the accident and the tribunal wrongly adopted the multiplier as '9' instead of '11', which is unsustainable. However, it is stated in the impugned award that the appellant was 55 years old at the time of the accident. As per the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)], the correct multiplier to be adopted for the age group of the appellant is '11'. Accordingly, applying the above standards and following the judgments of the apex court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹1,05,600/- (8000 x 12 x 11 x 10%) towards permanent disability. Hence, 2026:KER:3476 MACA No.2829/2015 ..6..
there will be an additional amount of ₹51,600/- under the head of permanent disability.
5.6. Bystander expenses - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal has taken only ₹200/- per day for 23 days towards bystander's expenses, which is on the lower side. Considering the fact that the accident was in the year 2011, I deem it appropriate to take ₹250/- per day towards bystander's expenses. Accordingly, she will be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹5,750/- (250 x 23) towards bystander expenses. Thus, there will be an additional compensation of ₹1,150/- under this head.
5.7. Extra nourishment - The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was hospitalized for a period of 23 days, however, the tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹1,000/- towards extra nourishment, which is on the lower side. Considering the fact that the accident was in the year 2011, I deem it appropriate to award a consolidated compensation of ₹5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of ₹4,000/- under this head.
6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under other heads as well, on a perusal of the records 2026:KER:3476 MACA No.2829/2015 ..7..
available and the impugned award, I am not inclined to interfere with the same since it appears to be just and reasonable.
7. Since the appeal is of the year 2015, I fix interest on the enhanced compensation @ 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. Thus, the impugned 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 48000 25000 23000 48000
2. Transport to 20000 4000 - 4000
hospital
3. Extra nourishment 10000 1000 4000 5000
4. Damages to 3000 - - -
clothing
5. Medical expenses 10000 29750 - 29750
6. Bystander 50000 4600 1150 5750
expenses
7. Other incidental 10000 - - -
charges
8. Future treatment 100000 - - -
expenses
9. Pain and suffering 100000 30000 10000 40000
10. Loss of earning 300000 54000 51600 105600
capacity
11. Loss of amenities 100000 15000 25000 40000
Total 841000 163350 114750 278100
limited
to
500000
2026:KER:3476
MACA No.2829/2015
..8..
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is awarded an additional compensation of ₹1,14,750/- (Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand seven hundred and fifty only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appellant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details before the respondent 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 before the tribunal. Upon such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the appellant at the earliest in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the enhanced compensation will not carry interest for the period of delay of 136 days in filing the appeal.
SD/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-