Kerala High Court
Abubacker vs Firoz K.V on 15 September, 2025
MACA NO. 957 OF 2014
1
2025:KER:68467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
MACA NO. 957 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 22.01.2013 IN OP(MV) NO.2946
OF 2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-
ABUBACKER, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O KUNJIMON, RESIDING AT VARIYATHEYIL KARAYIL
HOUSE, AKAAD DESOM, KUZHINGARA, PUNNAYUR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-
1 FIROZ K.V., S/O ABOOBACKER,RESIDING AT VARIYATHEYIL
KARAYIL HOUSE, P.O EDAKKARA, PUNNAYUR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR 680518
2 SUDHEER, S/O M.A.KUNJU
RESIDING AT PUTHURAYIL HOUSE
MUKKILEPEEDIKA, KUZHINGARA DESOM
PUNNAYURKULAM, THRISSUR - 679 561.
3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BRANCH OFFICE, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR - 680 503.
BY ADV SHRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 15.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 957 OF 2014
2
2025:KER:68467
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.2946 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.
2. According to the claimant, on 02.03.2005 at about 8.15 p.m., while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, the motorcycle overturned, causing the petitioner to sustain serious injuries. The appellant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,20,000/-.
3. The first and second respondents, the owner and the rider of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed as well as negligence of the 2nd respondent. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A9 and Ext.B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹96,824/- rounded to ₹97,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest MACA NO. 957 OF 2014 3 2025:KER:68467 @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. 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.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal solely relying on the written statement filed by the insurer, wherein it was contended that the policy being an Act policy found that it did not cover the pillion rider and exonerated the insurer from liability and directed the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation. It is also submitted that, as per the IRDA circular of 1986, under a comprehensive policy, the pillion rider is also covered and that Ext.B1 policy was a comprehensive policy. On the basis of the incorrect contention taken by insurer, the claimant was not paid any amount though the accident was in the year 2005 and sought for compensatory cost under Section 172 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. On a perusal of Ext.B1 policy, it is seen that the policy is a package policy and not merely an Act only policy, under MACA NO. 957 OF 2014 4 2025:KER:68467 which the pillion rider is also entitled to claim compensation from the owner of the vehicle. Section 172 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows :-
172. Award of compensatory costs in certain cases.
--(1) If the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that--
(a) the claim for compensation made under this Act is false or vexatious to the knowledge of the claimant; or
(b) the defence taken is false or vexatious to the knowledge of the party raising such defence, the Tribunal may, after recording reasons in writing, make an order for the payment of compensatory costs, not exceeding one thousand rupees, by the claimant or the party, as the case may be, to the opposite party.
7. On a perusal of the written statement filed, it is seen that without properly verifying the policy issued, the insurer had raised a false defence before the Tribunal by contending that the pillion rider was not covered under the policy, despite the policy being a comprehensive one. Thus, delaying the payment of compensation to the claimant. It is true that the claimant could have also brought to the notice of the tribunal that the policy being a comprehensive policy, the pillion rider was entitled for compensation. However, a duty was cast upon the insurer, to MACA NO. 957 OF 2014 5 2025:KER:68467 properly verify the policy before raising any such contention. Since, the insurer was exonerated from the liability, on the basis of a false defence taken, the claimant had to approach this court by filing an appeal. I find it a fit case to award compensatory costs of ₹1,000/- to the appellant/claimant, under Section 172 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the policy was a comprehensive policy, the finding of the tribunal exonerating the insurer from the liability is liable to be set aside.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-
Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹4,500/- was claimed, the tribunal has taken only an amount of ₹3,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd [2011 (13) SCC 236], the income of a Coolie, for an accident that occurred in the year 2005, is fixed as ₹5,000/- and seeks for enhancement of the income. Following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra) in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix MACA NO. 957 OF 2014 6 2025:KER:68467 the income at ₹5,000/- per month.
Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken only a period of three months for calculating compensation under the head loss of earnings. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I find that a period of four months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Since, the monthly income fixed is ₹5,000/, the total compensation payable under the head is ₹20,000/- (5,000x4). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹9,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹11,000/- under the head loss of earnings.
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 ₹20,000/- can be awarded under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹5,000/- under the afore head.
Loss of amenities :- The learned counsel for the appellant MACA NO. 957 OF 2014 7 2025:KER:68467 submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹14,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Considering the nature of injuries sustained as well as the age of the appellant, I find that a total amount of ₹15,000/- can be awarded under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹1,000/- under the afore head.
Permanent Disability :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as per Ext.A6 disability certificate, the percentage of whole body disability was assessed at 12%, but the Tribunal reduced it to 7% without assigning any proper or valid reasons .If the tribunal had any doubt ought to have referred the claimant for further examination to a medical board. However, the tribunal has not done so by following the apex court decision, Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar [2011 (1) KLT 620] and the judgment of this Court in Manikantan G. v. K.Janardhanan Nair [2021(5) KHC 305]. I do not find any reason to disbelieve Ext.A6 disability certificate. Accordingly, the percentage of disability is fixed at 12%. Therefore, following the judgments in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017(4) KLT 662(SC)] and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport MACA NO. 957 OF 2014 8 2025:KER:68467 Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802(SC)], the compensation payable under the said head is recalculated thus: ₹79,200/- (5,000x12x11x12/100). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹27,720/- towards the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹51,480/- under the head loss of dependency.
9. Though the appellant 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 2014, I find it reasonable to fix the interest @ 7% per annum on the enhanced amount.
10. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows:-
Sl.
No Head of Claim Amount Amount Modified Total claimed awarded by in appeal compensation the tribunal 1 Loss of earnings 20,000 9,000 11,000 20,000 2 Medical expenses 30,000 26,704 (not 26,704 modified) MACA NO. 957 OF 2014 9 2025:KER:68467 3 Bystander Nil 1,400 (not 1,400 expenses modified) 4 Transportation 1,000 3,000 (not 3,000 expenses modified) 5 Extra nourishment 3,000 Nil Nil Nil 6 Damage to 1,000 Nil Nil Nil clothing 7 Pain and 20,000 15,000 5,000 20,000 sufferings 8 Disability 25,000 27,720 51,480 79,200 9 Loss of 10,000 14,000 1,000 15,000 amenities TOTAL 1,20,000 96,824 68,480 1,65,304 rounded to 97,000 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Since this Court has found that it is a fit case for granting compensatory costs, the insurer is directed to pay an amount of ₹1,000/- to the claimant. The finding of the tribunal exonerating the insurer from the liability is set aside. The insurer shall pay the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal as well as the enhanced compensation now awarded by this Court.
The appellant/claimant is also awarded an additional compensation of ₹68,480/- (Rupees sixty eight thousand four MACA NO. 957 OF 2014 10 2025:KER:68467 hundred and eighty 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 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 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 301 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE SMA