2025:KER:28161 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 1084 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2017 IN OPMV NO.492 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: JOHN VARGHESE AGED 56, S/O.VARGHESE, KOLATHU (H), MANTHURUTHI P.O., NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.PRAFIN JOSEPH ZACHARIA SMT.PRASEENA ELIZABETH JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1 RAJESH B NAIR KOCHU KAROTTU (H), ERUMATHALA BHAGAM, VAZHOOR, PIN-686504. 2 SAJAYAN P.P. PUTHENKUTTIYIL (H), PRAKASH P.O., KALIYAR KANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685515. 3 DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KOTTAYAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO. 1084 OF 2018 2 2025:KER:28161 JUDGMENT The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.492 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 03.01.2016. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- On 03.01.2016, at about 9.00 p.m., while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-05-N-4191 with his wife on the pillion through Vazhoor - Changanassery public road and when reached near Mailadi toddy shop, a car bearing registration No. KL-07-AN-5553, came from behind, hit on the motorcycle which the petitioner was riding. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner as well as his wife were thrown to the road causing serious injuries on both of them. 3. The driver and the owner of the offending car were arrayed as 1st and 2nd respondents respectively, whereas, the insurer of the said car was arrayed as 3rd respondent. 4. The 3rd respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed in the petition. However, the 3rd respondent admitted insurance MACA NO. 1084 OF 2018 3 2025:KER:28161 coverage for the car involved in the accident. 5. During trial, from the side of the petitioner Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. From the side of the respondents, copy of the insurance policy certificate was produced and marked in evidence as Ext.B1. 6. After trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No. KL-07-AN-5553 by the 1st respondent, and being the insurer, the 3rd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. However, the tribunal further found that there was violation of policy conditions, as the 1st respondent who had driven the car was not having a valid driving license at the time of the accident. Considering the same, after effecting the payment, the 3rd respondent was permitted to recover the compensation paid, from the 2nd respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle. The compensation was quantified at Rs. 39,150/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. Seeking enhancement of the said compensation awarded by the tribunal, the petitioner has come up with this appeal. 7. I heard Sri.Prafin Joseph Zacharia, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Smt.K.S.Santhi, the learned MACA NO. 1084 OF 2018 4 2025:KER:28161 counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. From the rival contentions raised, it is gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the tribunal under various heads is too meager and such an amount was awarded without considering the gravity and nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just, fair, reasonable, and adequate and warrants no interference. 9. From a perusal of the impugned award, it can be seen that for the purpose of determining compensation under the head of loss of earnings, the tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs. 9,000/-. Nonetheless, admittedly the accident occurred in the year 2016. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the tribunal ought to have assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,500/-. 10. For the purpose of determining compensation under the head of loss of earnings, the tribunal took a period of one month. MACA NO. 1084 OF 2018 5 2025:KER:28161 The petitioner had sustained the following injuries in the accident; ● Multiple abrasion over the dorsum of right toes, foot leg; ● Contused abrasion 6 x 4 cm on the right thigh; ● Selling right foot. The injuries sustained by the petitioner are only trivial in nature. Therefore, I am also of the view that the loss of earnings taken by the tribunal for a period of one month is justifiable and reasonable. Anyhow, consequent to the revision in the monthly income, corresponding enhancement must be made to the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 10,500/- (Rs.10,500/- x 1) as compensation under the head of loss of earnings. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs.9,000/- under the said head, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) as additional compensation under the head of loss of earnings. 11. Similarly, under the head of pain and sufferings, the tribunal awarded only a meager amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, I am of the view that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is to be awarded under the head of pain and sufferings, entitling the MACA NO. 1084 OF 2018 6 2025:KER:28161 petitioner to get an additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) under the said head. 12. Moreover, under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation. As revealed from the treatment records, the petitioner had undergone six days of inpatient treatment in connection with the accident. Considering the hardships and inconveniences endured by the petitioner due to the injuries sustained by him, I am of the view that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. After deducting the already awarded amount of Rs. 8,000/-, the petitioner is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Only) under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. 13. The compensation awarded by the tribunal under other various heads appears to be reasonable and justifiable and hence, no interference is warranted. Hence, an amount of Rs. 23,500/- (Rs.1,500/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 12,000/- has to be added to the total compensation awarded by the tribunal. In the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs. 23,500/- (Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Five MACA NO. 1084 OF 2018 7 2025:KER:28161 Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation with interest before the tribunal with proportionate costs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. As there is violation of policy conditions, the 3rd respondent, the insurance company is permitted to recover the amount paid as additional compensation from the 2nd respondent, the owner of the car bearing registration No. KL-07-AN-5553, after effecting the payment. Sd/- JOBIN SEBASTIAN JUDGE ANS