IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN RD MONDAY, THE 3 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946 MACA NO. 179 OF 2019 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 04.08.2018 IN OPMV NO.179 OF 2016 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, GURGAON NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, IFFCO BHAVAN,THOTTAKKAT ROAD, KOCHI-11.

BY ADVS.

MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

GEETHA SUDARSHANAN, W/O SUDARSHANAN, KOZHIKKAL HOUSE,MADAPLATHURUTHU, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 516 BY ADVS.

SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR)

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the third respondent-Insurer in OP(MV) No.179 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur. The respondent herein is the claimant before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 10.04.2016, at 9.45 a.m., while she was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-42-E-7181 along the eastern side of North Paravur – Moothakunnan NH 17, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-39-H-7920 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the vehicle on which the claimant was riding and as a result of the accident, the claimant fell down and sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal seeking a total amount of ₹6,00,000/-, which is limited to ₹4,00,000/- as compensation.

3. The first, second and the third respondents before the tribunal are the driver, the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. Though notice was served on the respondents, the first and second respondents did not appear and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent insurer, filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy but disputing the liability and quantum of the compensation claimed. They denied the negligence attributed on the part of the first respondent. Exts.A1 to A11 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the petitioner therein. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents therein. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹3,78,228/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the respondent being the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the insurer has come up in appeal. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/ 3^rd respondent and the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurer submitted that the tribunal had awarded an amount of ₹80,000 and ₹60,000/- respectively towards the heads, compensation for pain and suffering and compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, without proper appreciation of evidence. The injured was a lady, aged 62 years who sustained a fracture of 2^nd to 5^th ribs on the right side due to the injury. There was bleeding in the brain as per Ext.A9 discharge summary. The permanent disability of the claimant was assessed as 10% as per Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Considering all the factual aspects, the tribunal has granted compensation towards the afore heads. On a perusal of the nature of the injuries sustained, I do not find any reason to interfere with the amount granted by the tribunal towards the afore heads and it is found to be just and reasonable.

6. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the insurer submitted that the tribunal had awarded a consolidated amount of ₹1,50,000 instead of applying the multiplication method which would have been only ₹84,000, under the head permanent disability with ₹10,000 as notional income. On a perusal of the awar