Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49508
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
MACHINGAL ABDURAHIMAN – Appellant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. – Respondent
MACA NO. 2454 OF 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.Babu S. Nair
For the Respondents: Shri.A.A.Mohammed Nazir, Sri.Devaprasanth.P.J, Sri.Anwar Sadath, Sri.K.Dilip
The court enhanced compensation for the appellant based on reevaluation of income and added recovery allowances while addressing procedural delays affecting interest rights.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act - Compensation determination - Enhancement of compensation claimed for notional income, pain and suffering, loss of earning, and amenities following an accident - Tribunal’s award modified based on reevaluation of income and added compensation allowances. (Paras 3-11)
(B) Appellate procedure - Delay in impleading necessary parties and its impact on interest entitlement were discussed. (Paras 10-11)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a compensation claim due to an accident on 09.05.1996 involving a goods auto-rickshaw driven by the claimant that was hit by a bus leading to serious injuries. The tribunal initially awarded ₹1,39,205/-, which the appellant seeks to enhance.
Findings of Court:
The appeal allows additional compensation of ₹41,100/- with specified interest, while limiting interest rights due to delays in party impleadment.
Issues: The court evaluated claims for income adjustments, additional compensation for injuries, and interest calculations amidst procedural delays.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed principles regarding fair compensation assessments, particularly for long-standing injury relationships and procedural diligence.
Result: Appeal allowed in part with modifications to compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim stemming from an accident leading to significant injuries seeking fair compensation. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. delays in party impleadment affecting insurance liability and interest calculations. (Para 4 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. reevaluation of income and compensation components based on injuries and incurred losses. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's reasoning around substantiality and fairness in compensations evaluated. (Para 10) |
| 5. final ruling includes adjustment of awards and condition-based interest rights. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Spoke. Judgment dated 16.10.2025 is suo motu recalled.
This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.714 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The respondent herein is the 3rd respondent before the tribunal.
2. According to the claimant, on 09.05.1996, while the appellant was driving a goods auto- rickshaw, a bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the auto-rickshaw and thereby he sustained serious injuries. He approached the tribunal claiming compensation of ₹2,50,000/-.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3rd respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy, but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and it is also contended that the 1st respondent had no valid badge for driving the vehicle. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11 and Ext.B1, Exts.X1 and X2 were marked. PW1 was examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹1,39,205/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till realization, as compensation under different heads against the 3rd respondent being the insurer and then is allowed to recover the amount from the second respondent/owner. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads:-
Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though an amount of ₹3,000/- was claimed as the monthly income, the tribunal had taken only an amount of ₹1,500/- and sought enhancement of the income fixed. The learned counsel further submitted that he was an auto-rickshaw driver by profession and the accident occurred while he was driving the auto-rickshaw. Considering the afore facts, in order to award a just and reasonable compensation, I find it appropriate to re-fix the income at ₹2,000/- per month.
Loss of earnings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that for awarding compensation under the head loss of earnings, the tribunal has taken a period of one year. Since the income has been re-fixed, the total compensation payable under the head loss of earnings is re-calculated to ₹24,000/- (2000 x 12). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of ₹18,000/- under the afore head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of ₹6,000/- under the head loss of earnings.
Pain and sufferings :- The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though an amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed as the compensation towards the head pain and sufferings, the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹15,000/-. Following were the injuries sustained: 1) Multiple abrasions, (R) shoulder, (R ) Knee, (L) foot, (R ) hip, 2) Lacerated wound right knee 3x1cm, 3) Contusion right hip pelvic compression, 4) Bleeding from urethra- urethral rupture fracture pelvis. The learned counsel submits that the appellant is still undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained in the 1996 accident. In support of this, reliance is placed on Annexure A and B which were produced along with I.A. No. 2 of 2024. The treatment is reportedly being administered at the Government Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, as stated by the appellant.
The l
