Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15428
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SRIBIL S/O. SUKUMARAN – Appellant
Versus
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Respondent
MACA 1445/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.V.BABY, SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
For the Respondents: SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SR.
Compensation for motor vehicle accident injuries must consider both liability and the extent of functional disabilities resulting from the accident.
Headnote:The petitioner claimed compensation for injuries in a motor accident under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging negligence by the driver of a car that hit him. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,59,536 as compensation. The appeals challenged both the liability and the amount. The issues include whether the compensation awarded was just and reasonable. The Court reaffirmed the Tribunal's findings, adjusting the compensation based on assessed disabilities and future prospects, ultimately allowing the appeal in part by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 61,62,804.
Result: MACA 2031 is allowed in part; MACA 1445 is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. outlines the judicial reasoning for adjusting compensation based on disability and future prospects. (Para 17) |
| 2. summarizes the outcome of the appeals and adjusted compensation. (Para 20 , 22) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.238/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, is the appellant herein in MACA No.2031/2017 and the 3rd respondent therein is the appellant in MACA No.1445/2017 (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).
2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.10.2010. According to the petitioner, on 14.10.2010 at about 8.15 a.m., while he was riding a motorcycle bearing reg.no.KL AG 2885, a car bearing reg.no.KL 45 A 8790 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, knocked him down and as a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.1,25,05,000/- limited to Rs.1,00,00,000/-.
4
4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A23 and X1. No evidence was adduced by the respondents.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.40,59,536/- and directed the insurer to pay the same.
7. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner & 3rd respondent preferred these appeals.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?
9. Heard Sri.P.V.Baby, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri. Mathews Jacob, the learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Sri.P.Jacob Mathew, the Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
10. The Point: In this case the accident as well as valid insurance policy of the offending vehicle are admitted. In the accident the
5 petitioner sustained the following injuries:
1. Fracture of maxilla
2. Fracture of mandible right condylar
3. Fracture of radius
4. Fracture neck of shaft of femur
9. Ext.A4 is his scan report. As per the scan report the following findings were reached.
• Comminuted fracture anterior, medial and postero lateral walls of both maxillary sinuses Extending to involve both ptergoid plates • Fracture both nasal bones and the nasal septum • Fracture body of mandible adjacent to the symphysis • Subcondylar fracture of the left mandibular condyle with left tempero mandibular joint dislocation.
• Minimal sub arachnoid hemorrhage • Minimal pneumocephalus • Minimal left pleural effusion • No ascitis at present • Normal sonographis appearance of liver, gallbladder, spleen and left kidney.
6 • Comminuted fracture posterior wall of right acetabulum extending along the posterior pillar with marked displacement of the fractured fragments. The fracture line is extending inferiority along the quadrilateral plate to the ischeal tuberosity.
• Posterior fracture dislocation of right hip joint with marked displacement of the femoral head.
• Multiple small intra articular fragments within the fight hip joint.
11. As per Exhibit X1 disability certificate issued by the medical board, the petitioner suffered 45% psychological disability and 17% orthopedic disability and the whole body disability was assessed as 53.5%. However, considering the con
