Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M. Manoj, J
VIJAYAN – Appellant
Versus
SOMESH – Respondent
MACA NO. 627 OF 2019|O.P(M.V) NO.1351 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.K. Koshy, Sabu I. Koshy, V.V. Risani
For the Respondents: T.K. Biju (Manjinikara), George Cherian (Sr.), K.S. Santhi, Latha Susan Cherian
Determination of notional income for skilled workers in the unorganized sector when documentary evidence is not fully proved; the court may adopt a reasonable amount based on the nature of the avocation and judicial precedents.
Headnote:The case involves a claim for enhancement of compensation following a fatal motor accident. The claimants sought a higher monthly income for the deceased, who worked as an aluminium fabricator, challenging the Tribunal's assessment of ₹7,000 per month despite a salary certificate claiming ₹18,000. The court found the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent. The primary issue was the determination of the deceased's monthly income. The court reasoned that while the salary certificate was not proved by examining the author, the Tribunal's assessment was too low for a skilled worker. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding skilled laborers in the unorganized sector, the court enhanced the notional income to ₹14,000 per month. The appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ₹10,58,400/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 02nd day of July, 2026
The petitioners in O.P. (M.V.) No.1351 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the death of one Vishnu Vijayan in a motor accident that occurred on 17.09.2014.
The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that on 17.09.2014 at about 10.40 a.m., the deceased, Sri. Vishnu Vijayan, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-04/Q-6145 along the Kottayam–Kottarakkara Road. When the motorcycle reached near Manthuka Junction, a car bearing Registration No. KL-22/F-6907, owned and driven by the 1st respondent, allegedly came in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle. The deceased sustained grievous injuries in the accident and was initially taken to Century Hospital, Mulakkuzha, and thereafter referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, where he succumbed to the injuries on 27.09.2014. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by the 1st respondent.
The 1st respondent remained exparte. the insurer is arrayed as 2nd respondent. During trial, the document produced from the side of the petitioners were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. No evidence has been adduced from the side of the respondents. PW1 is the father of the deceased. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, passed an award for ₹12,28,890/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the application till realization. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have come up in appeal.
The Tribunal, upon considering the rival pleadings, framed the necessary issues regarding the cause of the accident, the entitlement of the claimants to compensation, and the quantum of compensation payable. In support of the claim, the petitioners examined PWs 1 and 2 and marked the relevant documentary evidence. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent. The Tribunal further held that the offending vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance issued by the 2nd respondent and that the death of the deceased was a direct consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal fastened the liability on the insurer to indemnify the insured and satisfy the award.
The principle contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is with respect to the fixation of the monthly income of the deceased. It is submitted that Ext.A10 salary certificate clearly establishes that the deceased was employed as an aluminium fabricator and was earning a monthly salary of ₹18,000/- at the time of the accident. According to the appellants, the Tribunal committed a serious error in fixing the monthly income at only ₹7,000/- despite the production of the salary certificate.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent insurance company contended that though Ext.A10 salary certificate was marked in evidence, the same had been specifically objected to. It is submitted that the person who issued the salary certificate was not examined before the Tribunal and, therefore, the document could not have been relied upon for determining the actual income of the deceased.
I have heard Sri.T.K.Koshy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt.Latha Susuan Cherian, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent insurance company.
On an appreciation of the materials on record, I find no reason to interfere with t
