Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 619 (KER)

Rajesh v. C. Ramesh, S/O. Chinnathambi

2026-05-21

Shoba Annamma Eapen

body2026
JUDGMENT : Shoba Annamma Eapen, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P(MV) No.405 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, claiming enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal. 2. According to the claimant, on 21.01.2016, at about 2.00 p.m., while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7-CE-5225 along Puthiyakavu – Kureekkadu road, a tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-28-AJ-2971 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle, causing the claimant to fall down. Thereafter, the tanker lorry ran over the left leg of the claimant, resulting in serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.32,15,000/- which is limited to Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent, insurer, filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy but denying the liability and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. They contended that the second respondent was not having a valid driving licence and that the vehicle had no valid permit to ply the vehicle on road at the relevant time of accident. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A24 & Exts. B1 and C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.5,19,145/-, which is rounded to Rs.5,19,200/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the respondent – insurer and then recover the same from the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle since there was no valid driving license. 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 insurer. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, they chose to remain absent. 5. 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 insurer. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, they chose to remain absent. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads: I. Loss of earnings The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken only a period of four months for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings. The claimant sustained the following injuries: I) Grade III open left leg distal 1/3rd fracture tibia and fibula ii) Crush injury left lower limb Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find that a period of six months can be taken for awarding compensation under the said head. Thus the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings would be Rs.1,08,000/- (18,000 x 6). Since the tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.72,000/- under the said head, there will be an additional amount of Rs. 36,000/ - under the afore head. II. Attendant expenses The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of Rs.15,000/- was claimed by the appellant towards the head attendant expenses, the tribunal had granted only an amount of Rs.6,000/- for nineteen days in-patient treatment. Considering that the accident occurred in the year 2016, as well as the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to grant Rs.400/- per day for nineteen days inpatient treatment, totalling to Rs.7600/- (400 x 19). Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,600/- under the afore head. III. Extra nourishment The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal had granted only an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment for nineteen days in-patient treatment. Considering the year of accident as well as the period of hospitalisation, I am inclined to grant Rs.400/- per day for nineteen days, totalling to Rs.7600/- (400 x 19). Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 2,600/- under the head extra nourishment. IV. Pain and suffering The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of Rs.75,000/- was claimed towards the head pain and sufferings, only an amount of Rs.40,000/- was awarded by the tribunal. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 2,600/- under the head extra nourishment. IV. Pain and suffering The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of Rs.75,000/- was claimed towards the head pain and sufferings, only an amount of Rs.40,000/- was awarded by the tribunal. Considering the age and the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, I find it appropriate to enhance the total compensation payable under the head pain and sufferings at Rs.50,000/-. Thus there will be an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- under the afore head. 6. Though the appellant claimed enhancement of compensation under 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. 7. Thus, the impugned award of the tribunal is modified as follows: Sl. No. Head of Claim Amount claimed (in Rs.) Amount awarded by the tribunal (in Rs.) Amount modified in appeal (in Rs.) Total compensation 1 Loss of earnings 12,00,000 72,000 36,000 1,08,000 2. Partial loss of earnings 1,2000 - - - 3 Transport to hospital 4,000 3,000 (not modified) 3,000 4 Extra nourishment 8,000 5,000 2,600 7,600 5 Damage to clothing & articles 1,000 1,000 (not modified) 1,000 6 Treatment expenses 3,50,000 18,145 (not modified) 18,145 7 Attendant expenses 15,000 6,000 1,600 7,600 8 Pain and sufferings 75,000 40,000 10,000 50,000 9 Towards disability 4,00,000 3,24,000 (not modified) 3,24,000 10 Loss of earning power 8,00,000 - - - 11 Towards amenities 3,00,000 50,000 (not modified) 50,000 12 Towards disfigurement 50,000 - - - Total amount (which is limited to) 32,15,000 25,00,000 5,19,145 50,200 5,69,345 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 50,200/- (Rupees Fifty thousand two hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the tribunal with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. The third 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 and the insurer shall further recover the said amount from the first respondent/owner. The third 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 and the insurer shall further recover the said amount from the first respondent/owner. The claimant shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR 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 claimant at the earliest, in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the appellant is not entitled for interest for the period of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal.