Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 38109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SUBAIR.M.P. – Respondent
MACA NO. 39 OF 2020 | CO NO. 34 OF 2025 | OPMV NO.805 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.JACOB MATHEW
For the Respondents: U.P.BALAKRISHNAN, C.H.ABDUL RASAC, ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
Important Points
Subject
Motor Vehicle Accident - Compensation Claim
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Legal principles of determination of notional income and compensation for permanent disability established through relevant case laws.
(C) Evidence pertaining to claim petitioner's employment and income supported by documents led to determination of compensation.
(D) Issue of whether Tribunal's findings on negligence and compensation warranted interference by High Court addressed. (E) Court affirmed Tribunal's findings, modifying compensation upwards based on demonstrated income, admitting injury impact on earning capacity. (F)
Result: The appellate award is enhanced to ₹12,79,021/- with interest at 8% per annum as directed by Tribunal, ordered to be deposited within 60 days. (Paras 1-13) Parties involved: Claim petitioner and insurance company.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. insurer's admissions and disputes. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. tribunal's award and reasoning. (Para 6) |
| 4. consideration of appeal points. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. dispute over notional income calculation. (Para 9) |
| 6. compensation for permanent disability. (Para 10) |
| 7. extra expenses claimed and awarded. (Para 11) |
| 8. bystander and attendant charges. (Para 12) |
| 9. final compensation award and order. (Para 13) |
C.S.SUDHA, J.
----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.39 of 2020 &
Cross Objection No. 34 of 2025 ----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June 2025
J U D G M E N T
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.805/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 26/03/2019. The sole respondent herein is the claim petitioner who has filed Cross Objection 34 of 2025. In this appeal and cross objection the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on 28/05/2016 at about 11:00 a.m., while he was driving autorickshaw bearing registration no.KL-18-H-7960 from Palayadnada to Payyoli and when he reached near Palayadnada bus stop, car bearing registration no.KL-18-K-2000 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner collided with the autorickshaw, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries.
3. The first respondent-owner and second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence. Averments in the petition regarding age and injuries were disputed. The amount of compensation claimed was contended to be excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A21 and Ext.C1 were marked on the side of the petitioner. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the third respondent.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹10,99,600/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.
7. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
8. Heard both sides
9. The Award of compensation under the following heads are challenged -
Notional income It was submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the latter at the time of the incident was a driver cum owner of autorickshaw earning ₹25,000/- per month. In the light of the dictum in Manusha Sreekumar v. United India Insurance Company Limited ., 2022 KHC 7106 : AIR 2022 SC 5161, the notional income fixed is liable to be enhanced. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the amount of ₹9,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable and in case the court is inclined to accept the argument of the claim petitioner, it may be fixed in accordance with the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236
9.1. In Manusha Sreekumar (Supra), the deceased was a self employed man, who is described by the Apex Court as a person, who donned multiple hats so as to provide a comfortable living for his family. It was alleged that the deceased was a fish vendor cum driver earning at least ₹25,000/- per month. In support of the claim, various documentary evidences were produced to prove his financial capacity, which were- (i) course certificate showing that the dece
