Kerala High Court
K A Felix vs The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd on 15 September, 2025
2025:KER:68754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TH
MONDAY, THE 15 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13.04.2018 IN OPMV NO.2495 OF
2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, VISHNU BUILDING,
K.P.VALLON ROAD, GIRINAGAR HOUSING COLONY,
GIRINAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI- 682 020,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:
2025:KER:68754
MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023
2
K.A.FELIX
KOOTTUNGAL HOUSE, MULAVUKADU VILLAGE, PONJIKKARA,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM- 682 504
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.AJOY
SHRI.T.M.DOLGOVE
SMT.M.NEEMA
SMT.P.S.GEETHA KUMARY
SRI. GEORGE A CHERIAN -SC
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 15.09.2025, ALONG WITH CO.130/2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68754
MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TH
MONDAY, THE 15 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
CO NO. 130 OF 2023
CRIME NO.213/2014 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13.04.2018 IN OPMV NO.2495 OF
2014 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM
CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT:
K A FELIX
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O ANTONY, KOOTTUNGAL HOUSE, MULAVUKADU VILLAGE,
PONJIKKARA, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682504
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.M.BABY
2025:KER:68754
MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023
4
SRI.T.R.SUGUNAN
SMT.P.S.GEETHA KUMARY
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, VISHNU BUILDING, K P VALLON
ROAD, GIRINAGAR HOUSING COLONY, GIRINAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - REPRESENTED BY
MANGER LEGAL., PIN - 682021
ADV. GEORGE.A.CHERIAN - STANDING COUNSEL
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.09.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.2690/2018, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68754
MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023
5
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the 2 nd respondent insurer in O.P.(MV) No.2495 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The respondent herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. Cross Objection No. 130 of 2023 in the appeal has been filed by the claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 06.06.2014, at 7.30 p.m., while the claimant was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-07-CA-4812 ridden by the first respondent, through the container road, it skidded due to the rash and negligent riding and as a result the claimant sustained serious injuries. The 2025:KER:68754 MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023 6 claimant approached the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹30,37,000/-, which is rounded to ₹30,00,000/-.
3. The first and second respondents were the rider and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively before the Tribunal. The first respondent filed a written statement contending that he was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident. The second respondent - insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A16 and Exts.X1 and X2 were marked. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the first respondent and awarded a sum of ₹50,53,500/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till 2025:KER:68754 MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023 7 realization with proportionate costs against the 2nd respondent being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the 2nd respondent - insurance company has come up in appeal and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation award, the claimant/cross objector has filed cross objection.
4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the cross objector/claimant.
5. The insurer and the claimant mainly challenged the quantum of compensation awarded under the following heads:
Notional income - The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant insurer submits that the Tribunal notionally fixed the monthly income of the claimant/cross objector, who claimed to be a 2025:KER:68754 MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023 8 painter by profession, at ₹13,000/-, reckoning daily income of ₹650/- for 20 days. It is further submitted that other than the evidence of PW1/wife of the claimant, no document was produced to prove that he was a painter by profession and had an income of ₹13,000/-. It is pointed out that the accident was in 2014 and even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the monthly income of a coolie is fixed at ₹9,500/-, and argues that the monthly income notionally fixed by the Tribunal at ₹13,000/- is on the higher side. The learned counsel for the cross objector however submitted that the claimant being a skilled labourer, the income fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Admittedly no documents have been produced to prove that the claimant was a painter and that he was receiving an amount of ₹650/- as his daily 2025:KER:68754 MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023 9 wages. PW1, wife of the claimant had deposed that he was a painter and stated that he was receiving the said amount as his daily wages. Moreover, in the FIS also his son had stated that his father was a painter. Considering the aforesaid facts, the fact that the deceased was a painter, appears to be correct. As far the income is concerned, there was failure on their part to adduce satisfactory evidence. However, considering the entire facts and evidence adduced in this case, I am of the opinion that since the accident was in the year 2014, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is slightly on the higher side. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to refix the monthly income of the claimant at ₹11,500/-.
Permanent disability - Since the monthly income of the claimant is refixed at ₹11,500/-, compensation towards permanent disability has to be recalculated. The claimant was 51 years old at 2025:KER:68754 MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023 10 the time of the accident and was 100% disabled. Thus, after adding 10% future prospects to the refixed notional income, the amount would be ₹12,650/- (11500 + 1150) for calculating permanent disability. Accordingly, 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 claimant will only be entitled to get a total compensation of ₹16,69,800/- (12650 x 12 x 11 x 100%) towards permanent disability. Thus, there will be a deduction of ₹46,200/- under the head of permanent disability.
Loss of earnings - The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submits that since compensation is granted to the claimant considering 100% disability, the Tribunal went wrong in awarding compensation towards loss of earnings. Since he was a painter by 2025:KER:68754 MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023 11 profession and was aged only 51 years, I find that an amount of ₹50,000/- can be fixed as compensation towards the afore head. Thus there will be a deduction of ₹50,000/- towards loss of earnings.
Attendant expenses - The learned standing counsel for the insurer submits that the Tribunal awarded ₹11,88,000/- under this head, which is on the higher side. It is further submitted that the accident was in 2014 and even if ₹5,000/- per month is considered as attendant expenses and a multiplier method is adopted, the amount would be less than ₹7,00,000/-. I find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer and deem it appropriate to fix ₹5,000/- as the monthly expenses for a bystander and award compensation towards bystander expenses following the judgments of the apex court in Jithendran v. New 2025:KER:68754 MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023 12 India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another [(2022) 15 SCC 620] and Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another [(2022) 13 SCC 142]. Accordingly, the claimant/cross objector will only be entitled to get ₹6,60,000/- (5000 x 12 x 11). Thus, there will be a deduction of ₹5,28,000/- under this head.
Pain and suffering - The learned counsel for the claimant submits that though the claimant claimed ₹3,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹2,00,000/-. Considering the fact that the claimant was 100% disabled, I am inclined to grant an amount of ₹3,50,000/- as total compensation towards pain and suffering. Thus, the claimant/cross objector will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹1,50,000/- as compensation towards pain and suffering.
2025:KER:68754 MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023 13 Loss of amenities - The learned counsel for the claimant submits that though the claimant claimed an amount of ₹5,40,000/- under this head, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of ₹1,50,000/-, which, according to the claimant, is on the lower side. Considering the fact that the claimant is 100% disabled, I deem it appropriate to award a total compensation of ₹3,50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the claimant/cross objector will be entitled to get an additional amount of ₹2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Future treatment - The learned standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that towards future treatment, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of ₹14,00,000/-. However, no documents have been adduced to prove the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant/cross objector has 2025:KER:68754 MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023 14 produced documents in respect of the treatment undergone to the claimant along with I.A.No.2/2025. On a perusal of the documents produced, it is seen that the future treatment had been given to the claimant and cochlear implant was also done at Medical Trust Hospital, by spending around an amount of ₹6,00,000/-. The claimant appeared before this Court today and I find that he is having 100% loss of hearing disability as well as difficulty to walk. He is only 61 years old now. However, considering the afore facts and the condition of the claimant/cross objector, I am not inclined to interfere with the amount already granted under the head future treatment.
6. Though the appellant - insurance company or cross objector
- claimant challenged the enhancement of compensation under other heads, on a perusal of the records available, I am not inclined to 2025:KER:68754 MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023 15 interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads since it appears to be just and reasonable.
7. Thus, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified as follows:
Sl. Amount Amount
Amount
No awarded by modified in Total
Head of Claim claimed
. the tribunal appeal compensation
(in Rs.)
(in Rs.) (in Rs.)
Loss of
1 1,00,000 1,00,000 (-50,000) 50,000
earning
Transport to
2 hospital and 5,000 25,000 (not modified) 25,000
back to home
Extra
3 5,000 50,000 (not modified) 50,000
nourishment
Damage to
4 clothes and 2,000 3,500 (not modified) 3,500
articles
5 Attendant 35,000 11,88,000 (-5,28,000) 6,60,000
expenses
Treatment 2,00,000 2,21,000 (not modified) 2,21,000
6
expenses
Compensation 3,50,000 2,00,000 1,50,000 3,50,000
7 for pain and
sufferings
2025:KER:68754
MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023
16
Compensation 5,40,000 1,50,000 2,00,000 3,50,000
for loss of
8
amenities and
comforts
Compensation 10,00,000 17,16,000 (-46,200) 16,69,800
9 for permanent
disability
Future 8,00,000 14,00,000 - 14,00,000
10 treatment
expenses
Total 30,37,000 50,53,500 (-2,74,200) 47,79,300
(claim limited 30,00,000
to)
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the
claimant/cross objector are awarded a total compensation of ₹47,79,300/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred Only) after deducting an amount of ₹2,74,200/- from the impugned award with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate cost. The appellant - insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest and 2025:KER:68754 MACA NO. 2690 OF 2018 & c.o. 130/2023 17 costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The claimant/cross objector shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and Bank details before the appellant - 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 claimant/cross objector at the earliest, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE RK