Kerala High Court
Deepak.V.S vs The Manager on 29 September, 2025
M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020
1
2025:KER:72988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA, 1947
MACA NO. 840 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 07.05.2019 IN OPMV NO.467 OF
2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NEYYATTINKARA.
APPELLANT/APPLICANT:
DEEPAK.V.S
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. VIJAYAN, VISHNU BHAVAN,
MUTTACAUD, MUTTACAUD P.O, VENGANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 523
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
SMT.M.BINDUDAS
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
3RD FLOOR, (5TH LEVEL) TRANS TOWERS,
VAZHUTHACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 29.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020
2
2025:KER:72988
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of September 2025
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.467/2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 07/05/2019. The sole respondent herein is the third respondent-insurer 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 06/11/2012 at about 03:15 p.m., while he was riding motorcycle through Vizhinjam-Poovar public road and when he reached the place by name, Kochuthura, truck bearing registration no.TN-69- AF-9199 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020 3 2025:KER:72988 manner knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner and the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte.
4. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the second respondent. The averments in the petition regarding age, occupation and monthly income of the claim petitioner were disputed. The compensation claimed under various heads was contended to be exorbitant.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A19 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020 4 2025:KER:72988 amount of ₹11,97,500/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the claim petitioner has come up in 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 is challenged by the claim petitioner- Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the notional income of ₹6,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side and that it needs to be appropriately enhanced. He draws my attention to Exts.A16 to A19, in support of the argument that the notional income needs to be appropriately enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020 5 2025:KER:72988 counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount that has been fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and if at all the Court is inclined to enhance the same, it may be as per the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236. It is also submitted that MACA No. 312/2025 filed by the insurer against the very same Award was dismissed, in which case, the question of notional income was also considered. However, this Court found that the income was reasonable and hence did not go for either any reduction or enhancement.
9.1. Ext.A16 certificate shows that the claim petitioner has passed the Hindi Sugama examination. Ext.A17 experience certificate dated 24/12/2008 reads thus-
EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE This is to certify that DEEPAK.V.S, S/o Vijayan Appupanicker, Vishnu Bhavan, Muttacaud P.O, Trivandrum Dist. has successfully completed certification testing to achieved the proficiency standard as a SAFTY OFFICER from 29-12-2006 to 24-12-2008. M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020 6
2025:KER:72988 Place: Trivandrum Date:24/12/2008 For FIRE TECH TECH Proprietor MANAGER FIRE TECH 9.2. Ext. A18 Certificate dated 18/10/1993 says that he has attended the National Integration Camp - Junior Division Boys of Bhagalpur, which certificate is seen issued by The Lt. Col. Camp Commander, National Cadet Corps, NCC.
9.3. Ext.A19 dated 12/12/2006 reads thus-
"EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE This is to certify that DEEPAK.V.S. S/o Vijayan Appupaniker, Vishnu Bhavan, Muttacaud.P.O. Trivandrum district, Kerala state, has successfully completed certification testing to achieved the proficiency standard as a SAFETY OFFICER from July 1st 2005 to December 12 th 2006. Place: Thiruvananthapuram Date : 12.12.2006. WE GUARD FIRE CONTROL Proprietor "M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020
7
2025:KER:72988 Apparently Exts.A16 and A18 cannot advance the case of the claim petitioner. In the claim petition, the allegation is that the claim petitioner is running a poultry farm. Ext.A10, certificate dated 02/08/2018 reads thus-
"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Sri. Deepak. V. S. Vishnu Bhavan, Muttakacad. Muttacadu P.O. Venganoor, Trivandrum-695 523 had worked in the Meat processsing Plant of Kerala State Poultry Development Corporation as worker as purely on daily wages basis during the period as detailed below. Wages were paid only for the days for which he was engaged.
Period
From To No of days worked
08.09.2012 30.09.2012 23
01.10.2012 28.10.2012 12
03.07.2013 17.07.2013 5
He is not entitled for any other benefits and having no future employment claim in this corporation."
9.4. Exts.A17 and A19 dated 2008 and 2006 respectively deal with his qualification as Fire Security Officer. However, he does not seem to be working in the said field, which is quite clear from the pleadings in the petition as well as Ext.A10 M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020 8 2025:KER:72988 which is dated 02/08/2018. As is apparent from the certificate, during the period from 08/09/2012 to 30/09/2012, 01/10/2012 to 28/10/2012 and 03/07/2013 to 17/07/2013 he was working on daily wages in a meat processing plant of the Kerala State Poultry Development Corporation. It is quite interesting to note that though it is stated that he was working on daily wages, the wages has not been specified in Ext.A10. In the light of Ext.A10, the argument that the claim petitioner was working in the fire safety field apparently is not correct. The materials on record do not show anything to substantiate his claim regarding income. However, going by the dictum in Ramachandrappa (Supra) the income of even a coolie in the year 2012 is liable to be fixed at ₹8,500/- per month. In the absence of any other better material(s) to prove the income claimed, I find that fixing the notional income at ₹8,500/- would be just and reasonable. Percentage of functional disability and future prospects
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020 9 2025:KER:72988 claim petitioner that when Ext.A15 disability certificate says that the claim petitioner has sustained 50% disability, the Tribunal was not justified in scaling down the functional disability to 40%, especially taking into account the nature of avocation of the claim petitioner. It is submitted that it is 100% disability that needs to be taken, as the claim petitioner was working in the fire safety field and hence the Tribunal was totally unjustified in reducing the functional disability to 40%.
10.1. Exhibit A15 disability certificate reads thus-
" Certificate of Disability General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram This is to certify that we have carefully examine Shri/Smt/Kum Deepak V.S. Son of Shri.Vijayan A age 39 years, male/female Register No.... Permanent resident of House s/o Vijayan A, Vishnu Bhavan, Muttakkadu, Venganoor, Thiruvananthapuram Ward/Village/Street ....... Post Office ....... District Thiruvananthapuram State, whose photograph is affixed above, and i am satisfied that A) His/her extend of permanent physical M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020 10 2025:KER:72988 impairment/mental disability has been evaluated for the disabilities ticked below, and is shown against the relevant disability in hte table below.
Sl.N Disability Affected part of Diagnos Disability IQ
o. the body is
1 Locomotive
Disability
2 Muscular
Dystrophy
3 Leprosy Cured
4 Dwarfism
5 Cerebal Palsy
6 Acid Attack
Victim
7 Low Vision
8 Blindness
9 Deaf
10 Hard of Hearing
11 Speech and
Language
Disability
12 Intellectual
Disability
13 Specific
Learning
Disability
14 Autism Spectrum
Disorder
15 Mental illness Organic Brain
Disorder 50%.
16 Chronic
Neurological
M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020
11
2025:KER:72988
Conditions
17 Multiple
Sclerosis
18 Parkinson's
Disease
19 Haemophilia
20 Thalassemia
21 Sickle Cell
Disease
B) In the light of the above, his/her over all physical
imparment/mental disability as per guideline ... is 50%
percentage (in figures) fifty percentage (in words).
2) This condition is progressive/non-progressive/likely to improve/not likely to improve.
3) Reassessment of disability is temporary/permanent "
10.2. The Tribunal had the advantage of seeing the claim petitioner and it was after seeing the claim petitioner, the disability was fixed as 40%. As referred to earlier, there is no pleadings in the claim petition that he was working as a fire safety officer. The materials on record also do not substantiate the same. M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020 12
2025:KER:72988 On the other hand, it shows that he was a daily wage worker in the poultry field. As held by the Apex Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar, AIR Online 2010 SC 125 followed in Anthony Swami v. M.D., KSRTC, (2020) 7 SCC 161 has explained the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases as :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment.
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non - pecuniary damages (General Damages) M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020 13 2025:KER:72988
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The Apex Court has lucidly set out the principles for grant of compensation in cases of permanent physical functional disability as follows: Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020 14 2025:KER:72988 earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020 15 2025:KER:72988 claimant could carry on despite the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.
10.3. As noticed earlier, the Tribunal had the advantage of seeing the claim petitioner in person while assessing the functional disability. Apart from Ext.A15, which does not refer to the difficulties faced in carrying out his duties, no other M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020 16 2025:KER:72988 evidence has been let in. In the facts and circumstance of the case, I do not find any reason for finding that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is incorrect. Therefore, I do not find any reason for interference into the same. However, the disability of 40% itself is quite high and that being the position, he is entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects.
11. The impugned Award is modified to the following extent:
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in No. claimed Awarded by appeal Tribunal (in ₹) (in ₹) (in ₹)
1. Loss of earning 80,000/- 48,000/- 68,000/-
(8,500/- x 8)
2. Transportation 10,000/- 5,000/- 5,000/-
expenses (No modification)
3. Extra 5,000/- 8,250/- 8,250/-
nourishment (No modification)
4. Damage to 5,000/- 500/- 500/-
clothing (No modification)
5. Medical 5,00,000/- 4,08,000/- 4,08,000/-
expenses (No modification)
6. Bystander's 5,000/- 13,200/- 13,200/-
expenses (No modification)
7. Pain and 1,00,000- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/-
sufferings (No modification)
M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020
17
2025:KER:72988
8. Loss of 1,50,000/- 1,53,600/- 1,53,600/-
amenities and (No modification)
enjoyment in
life
9. Permanent 30,000/- 4,60,800/- 9,13,920/-
disability [8500/- + (8,500/- x
40%) x 12 x 16
x40/100]
Total 30,000/- 11,97,350/- 16,70,470/-
rounded as
11,97,500/-
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ₹4,72,970/- (total compensation = ₹16,70,470/- that is, ₹11,97,500/- granted by the Tribunal + ₹4,72,970/- 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 174 days delay in filing the appeal) and proportionate costs. The third respondent/ insurer is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after making deductions, if any.M.A.C.A.No.840 of 2020
18
2025:KER:72988 Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA JUDGE Jms