Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46907
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. Sudha, J
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SIVAN PILLAI – Respondent
M.A.C.A.No.343 of 2020 | Cross Objection No. 65 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: FOR NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.: SRI.E.M.JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SRI.PRATHEESH.P, SMT.ANJANA KANNATH, SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI, SMT.S.SEETHA
The court modified compensation from ₹17,78,000 to ₹11,87,600, affirming negligence while adjusting loss calculations, guided by legal precedence on personal injury claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against award of compensation - Insurer filed appeal claiming no negligence; Claim petitioner filed cross-objection for inadequate compensation - Tribunal awarded ₹17,78,000/- for injury-related losses which was challenged by the insurer - Court assessed claims for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and permanent disability. (Paras 1, 6, 14)
(B) Negligence - The Tribunal found the driver of the offending vehicle negligent resulting in grievous injuries to the claim petitioner - Court acknowledges absence of oral evidence but affirms Tribunal's reliance on documentary evidence to establish negligence. (Paras 3, 6)
Facts of the case:
Accident occurred on 18/04/2017, where the claim petitioner sustained grievous injuries due to negligence of the driver in striking him while he was walking.
Findings of Court:
The original compensation awarded is modified to ₹11,87,600/- after considering actual losses and ensuring just compensation for the claimant.
Issues: Determining if there is any infirmity in the Tribunal’s findings on negligence and compensation awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: Court upheld Tribunal’s decision on negligence and adjusted certain compensation heads based on appropriate legal standards.
Result: Appeal and cross objections are partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. negligence determining causation in personal injury. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. award assessment based on evidence without oral testimonies. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on loss calculations and appropriate adjustments. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. court's rationale for affirming and modifying compensation awarded. (Para 13) |
| 5. final decision adjusting compensation based on injury impact. (Para 14) |
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.1216/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 29/08/2019. The respondent herein is the claim petitioner, who filed Cross Objection No.65 of 2020. 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
18/04/2017 at 08:30 p.m., while he was walking through the northern side of Puthiyakavu – Chakkuvally road from west to east at Lakshamveedu junction Thodiyoor, car bearing registration no.KL-61-7778 driven by the second respondent in a
2025:KER:62177 rash and negligent manner knocked him down, 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 on the part of the second respondent. The amount of compensation claimed under various heads was also disputed.
5. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A13 and X1 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was produced by the respondents.
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the 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 ₹17,78,000/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with
2025:KER:62177 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 and cross objection 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 is challenged -
Notional income It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that the notional income fixed as ₹10,000/- is low and that it needs to be appropriately enhanced. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that in the absence of evidence, the amount fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and that it does not call for any interference.
9.1. The amount that was claimed was ₹15,000/-.
2025:KER:62177 The Tribunal granted an amount of ₹10,000/-. The claim petitioner is a coolie. Therefore relying on the dictum in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd , (2011) 13 SCC 236, the notional income can be fixed at ₹11,000/- per month.
Loss of earnings
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the Tribunal grossly erred in granting an amount of ₹8,40,000/- towards loss of earnings, taking the loss of earnings on par with the multiplier that has been fixed in the judgment in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that in the light of the injuries sustained and the disabilities caused, the Tribunal was right in granting the said amount and hence the same calls for no interference.
10.1. The materials on record show that the claim petitioner sustained the following injuries -
2025:KER:62177 "Lacerated wound 35 x 5 cm, & (+Abrasion) both knees & both thighs.
Lacerated wou
