IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TH FRIDAY, THE 7 DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1946 MACA NO. 321 OF 2018 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.12.2016 IN OPMV NO.1463 OF 2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANT/S:

NADARAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.NANU,KONKERIL HOUSE,VALAMANGALAM OUTH.P.O,THURAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA-688532.

BY ADV SRI.V.A.VINOD RESPONDENT/S:

1 GIMMY GEORGE, S/O THOMAS GEORGE,THIRUVALIL VEEDU,PUNNAMOODU BHAGAM,MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY,WARD-18,MAVELIKKARA TALUK-690101.

2 THOMAS GEORGE, THIRUVALIL VEEDU, PUNNAMOODU BHAGAM,MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY, WARD-18,MAVELIKKARA TALUK-690101.

3 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL AND INSURANCE CO.LTD DARE HOUSE,2ND FLOOR,BSC BOSE ROAD,CHENNAI-600001.

BY ADV SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1463/2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha has filed 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 14.09.2009.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:-

On 14.09.2009, at 7.45 a.m., while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle through Alappuzha - Ernakulam National Highway, and when he reached near Chanthiroor Bridge, a car bearing registration No. KL-31-A-4747 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the motorcycle which the petitioner was riding. Due to the impact of the hit, the petitioner was thrown to the road causing him severe injuries.

3. The driver and owner of the car bearing registration number KL-31-A-4747 were arrayed as the first and second respondents respectively, whereas, the Insurer of the offending car was arrayed as the third respondent.

4. The third respondent contested the petition by filing a written statement mainly disputing the quantum of compensation claimed, despite admitting insurance coverage for the car involved in the accident. The petitioner’s evidence consists of Exts. A1 to A12. From the side of the respondents, no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced.

5. After trial, the tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the first respondent, and being the insurer, the third respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed at Rs. 5,94,078/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. Dissatisfied by the compensation awarded, the petitioner has come up with this appeal.

6. Heard Sri.V.A.Vinod, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. P.Jacob Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, the Insurance Company.

7. From the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for both sides, it is discernible that the main dispute that revolves around this appeal is with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is too meager and the impugned award was passed without considering the gravity and the nature of the injuries sustained to the petitioner in the accident as well as the consequent hardships and inconveniences caused to him. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and no interference is hence warranted.

8. From a perusal of the award, it is apparent that there is some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the purpose of determining the compensation under the head of permanent disability, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.4,000/-. Though in the petition, it was claimed that the petitioner was a chef in a five-star hotel earning a