Kerala High Court
Sivaprabhua. P vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 23 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.921 of 2020
1
2025:KER:45011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
MACA NO. 921 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 26.12.2018 IN OPMV NO.354 OF
2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH PARAVUR.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SIVAPRABHU A.P.,
AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, APPACHATH HOUSE,
METHALA P. O., KODUNGALLUR.
BY ADV SHRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD,
N. PARAVUR - 683513,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SHRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 23.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.921 of 2020
2
2025:KER:45011
C.S.SUDHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.921 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) has been filed by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.354/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, N.Paravur (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 26/12/2018. The sole respondent herein is the second respondent in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on 18/02/2017 at about 06:30 a.m., while he was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-47/2220 through the Paravur-Tectonically road from south to north, motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-42/J- 6122 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner M.A.C.A.No.921 of 2020 3 2025:KER:45011 collided with his vehicle as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent/rider remained ex parte.
4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy. The age, job, income, injury sustained etc. were disputed. It was contended that the amount claimed was exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹2,38,200/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in M.A.C.A.No.921 of 2020 4 2025:KER:45011 appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides.
9. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under the following heads are challenged by the claim petitioner- Notional income The learned counsel for the claim petitioner submits that the latter, a mason, aged 52 years, was earning an amount of ₹12,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at ₹10,000/-, which is quite low even going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236.
9.1. In the light of the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra), the notional income is fixed at ₹11,000/-. Loss of earnings
10. An amount of ₹25,000/- was claimed. The M.A.C.A.No.921 of 2020 5 2025:KER:45011 Tribunal granted loss of earnings for a period of one month, that is, ₹10,000/-. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner sustained the following injuries:-
"Swelling over right side of face, multiple abrasions over left leg; mild head injury."
He was hospitalized for a period of two days. Therefore, taking into account the nature of injuries, I find that in all probability he might have been unable to work for a period of two months. Therefore, he would be entitled to an amount of ₹11,000/-x 2months=₹22,000/-.
Percentage of disability
11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that as per Ext.A8 disability certificate the disability has been assessed as 27.10%. However, the Tribunal without any justification reduced it to 10%, which is a mistake and hence needs to be rectified. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurer that in the light of the injuries sustained, the percentage of disability taken as 10% is quite reasonable and that it does not call M.A.C.A.No.921 of 2020 6 2025:KER:45011 for any interference.
11.1. Ext.A8 permanent disability certificate dated 13/12/2018 reads thus:-
"Permanent Disability Certificate 13.12.2018 This is to certify that Mr. Sivaprabhu, 52 years, s/o Purushothaman, Appachathu (H), Methala, Kodungallur, Thrissur was involved in a road traffic accident on 18.02.2017. He was treated at Don Bosco Hospital North Paravur on 18.02.2017 and thereafter at Lourdes Hospital Ernakulam from 18.02.2017 to 19.02.2017 as hosp.no.0001145796. According to the discharge summary, wound certificate from the hospitals, he was diagnosed as Head injury, multiple fracture teeth. He was treated as OP at Lourdes hospital later with a diagnosis of post traumatic right ear hearing loss and Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. He has been undergoing repeated treatment for vertigo and hearing impairment at the local hospital after this as per the available treatment documents. He is formally educated up to 10th standard and by occupation was floor tile worker at the time of the accident. Now on clinical examination after verifying the available treatment documents he has the following findings and disabilities-
Cranial nerve examination-
He has impaired hearing in both ears with recurrent tinnitus and with Rinne's test reduced positive in the right, M.A.C.A.No.921 of 2020 7 2025:KER:45011 Weber test lateralized to left and absolute bone conduction test reduced in both ears. His pure tone audiogram done on 29.11.2018 shows bilateral mild sensorineural hearing loss with hearing threshold at 33.3dB in the right and 28.3 dB in the left ear. He has ataxia and vertigo with tendency to fall o turning the head posterior and laterally to either side suggestive of impairment to the vestibular part of eighth cranial nerve. His walking is broad based and has tendency to fall in the dark over irregular surfaces. His Romberg's test is positive and tandem walking impaired suggestive of neuronal involvement His dental impairment has been assessed separately by dentist.
His total permanent whole body disability is assessed according to the guidelines in the McBride's schedule and the AIIMS document, Persons With Disabilities Act 1995 Ministry Of Social Justice and Empowerment as follows:
1). Permanent disability due to vertigo and ataxia with tendency to fall and positive Romberg's sign post traumatic Paroxysmal positional vertigo diagnosed by treating doctor amount to 10% disability of whole body.
2). Permanent disability due to hearing impairment in the bilateral ear with recurrent tinnitus affecting his daily activities amounts to 10% disability of whole body.
3) Permanent disability due to loose teeth and need for procedures amount to 10% disability.
Total permanent whole body disability is calculated using the combination formula a+b(100-a)/100=27.10% (twenty seven decimal one zero percent only). ... ... ..."
(Emphasis supplied) M.A.C.A.No.921 of 2020 8 2025:KER:45011 The claim petitioner is a mason. As per the disability certificate, he has got permanent disability due to vertigo and ataxia with a tendency to fall. Taking into account the nature of his avocation, this certainly would have affected his functional ability and hence, I find that the disability can be fixed as 27% based on Ext.A8 issued by Professor of Neurosurgery, Medical College, Thrissur. Loss of amenities
12. An amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal granted an amount of ₹30,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that an amount of ₹50,000/- as claimed would be just and reasonable.
13. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent :
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded appeal by Tribunal 1 Loss of ₹25,000/- ₹10,000/- ₹22,000/-
earnings (₹11,000/-
x2months)
2 Extra ₹3,000/- ₹2,000/- ₹2,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
3 Damage to ₹2,000/- ₹2,000/- ₹2,000/-
M.A.C.A.No.921 of 2020
9
2025:KER:45011
clothing and (No modification)
articles
4 Medical ₹30,000/- ₹9,200/- ₹9,200/-
expenses (No modification)
5 Transportation ₹5,000/- ₹2,000/- ₹2,000/-
expenses (No modification)
6 Bystander ₹20,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
expenses (No modification)
7 Pain and ₹70,000/- ₹50,000/- ₹50,000/-
sufferings (No modification)
8 Compensation ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,32,000/- ₹3,92,040/-
for continues
or permanent (₹11,000/-x12x
disability 11x27/100)
9 Amenities ₹50,000/- ₹30,000/- ₹50,000/-
10 Loss of ₹50,000/- --- ---
earning power (No modification)
11 Partial loss of ₹5,000/- --- ---
earnings (No modification)
Total ₹3,60,000/- ₹2,38,200/- ₹5,30,240/-
limited to
₹1,50,000/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ₹2,92,040/- (total compensation ₹5,30,240/- that is, ₹2,38,200/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹2,92,040/- granted in appeal) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization (excluding the period of 175 days delay in filing the appeal) and M.A.C.A.No.921 of 2020 10 2025:KER:45011 proportionate costs. The second respondent/insurer is directed to deposit the compensation with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
SD/-
C.S. SUDHA JUDGE ak