Kerala High Court
Renjima M.R vs The New India Assurance Company Limited on 25 June, 2025
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
1
2025:KER:45638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
MACA NO. 11 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13.06.2019 IN OPMV NO.369 OF
2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THRISSUR.
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
CALICUT D.O.-II, SHAFEER COMPLEX,
OPP. YMCA, KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
RENJIMA M.R.,
AGED 23 YEARS,
D/O RAJAN M.K., MENOTH HOUSE, ALINTHAI,
PERUMPILAVU, KARIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DT. 680 519.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 12.06.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.2448/2020, THE COURT
ON 25.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
2
2025:KER:45638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
MACA NO. 2448 OF 2020
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 13.06.2019 IN OPMV NO.369 OF
2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THRISSUR.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RENJIMA M.R.,
AGED 23 YEARS,
D/O.RAJAN M.K., MENOTH HOUSE, ALINTHAI,
PERUMPILAVU, KARIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR - 680 519.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN
RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
D.O.-II, SHAFEER COMPLEX, OPPOSITE YMCA,
KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016.
BY ADVS.
SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA
SMT.M.HEMALATHA
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 12.06.2025, ALONG WITH MACA.11/2020, THE COURT ON
25.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
3
2025:KER:45638
C.S.SUDHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of June 2025
JUDGMENT
M.A.C.A.Nos.11 and 2448 of 2020 under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) have been filed by the third
respondent/insurer and the claim petitioner respectively in O.P.
(MV) No.369/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Thrissur, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of
compensation granted by Award dated 13/06/2019. In these
appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as
described in the original petition.
2. According to the claim petitioner, on 19/11/2016
at 02:30 p.m., she was travelling as a passenger in car bearing
registration No.KL-11-AC-4307 through the Koottanad-Pattambi
public road and when she reached near Koottanad petrol pump, due
to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the driver, the car
collided with lorry bearing registration no.KL-09-AB-8413 coming
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
4
2025:KER:45638
from the opposite side, as a result of which, she sustained grievous
injuries. A sum of ₹1,85,00,000/- was claimed as compensation
under various heads.
3. The first respondent is the owner of the car. The
second respondent is the wife of the driver of the car who died in the
incident.
4. The third respondent/insurer filed written
statement admitting the existence of a valid policy for the car.
However, it was contended that the amount claimed was excessive.
5. Respondents 4 to 6 are the owner, driver and
insurer respectively of the lorry. The fourth and the fifth
respondents filed written statement contending that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its
driver.
6. The sixth respondent filed written statement
admitting valid insurance policy for the lorry.
7. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced
by either side. Exts.A1 to A30 were marked on the side of the claim
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
5
2025:KER:45638
petitioner. Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the
respondents.
8. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary
evidence and after hearing both sides, found that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
car owned by first respondent and hence awarded an amount of
₹70,15,550/- 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 and the claim
petitioner have come up in appeals challenging the compensation
awarded.
9. The only point that arises for consideration in
these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the
Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.
10. Heard both sides.
11. The award of compensation by the Tribunal under
the following heads are challenged :
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
62025:KER:45638
Notional income
The learned counsel for the claim petitioner relying on the
dictums in S.Vasanthi v. Adhiparasakthi Engineering College,
(2022) 15 SCC 316 ; Kumud Gupta v. Iffco Tokio General
Insurance Co. Ltd., 2024 KHC 8230: 2024 ACJ 658 and an
unreported judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated
01/11/2024 in MACA No.1687/2021 (Syamala C. v. M/s. Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited) submitted that
₹10,000/- fixed under this head is quite low and hence the same has
to be refixed by at least ₹25,000/- per month. Per contra, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the third respondent/insurer relying on
the dictum in Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali, 2021 (6) KHC 596 :
(2021) 17 SCC 148 submitted that the amount that has been fixed is
reasonable and that it does not call for any interference.
11.1 In S.Vasanthi (Supra) the deceased was a 23 year
old Engineering graduate pursuing MBA. The Tribunal fixed the
notional income at ₹7,000/- which was raised to ₹10,000/- by the
High Court. In appeal, the Apex Court found that the claim
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
7
2025:KER:45638
petitioner therein, the mother of the deceased, had produced salary
certificates of the classmates of the deceased to substantiate her
claim that her deceased son would also have gotten a monthly salary
of approximately ₹40,000/- per month. This was not considered by
either the Tribunal or the High Court. The Apex Court taking into
account the evidence produced, fixed the notional income at
₹30,000/- per month.
11.2. In Kumud Gupta (Supra) the deceased was a
B.Tech student and the notional income was claimed to be
₹25,000/-. The High Court fixed the notional income at ₹20,000/-
which was confirmed by the Apex Court in appeal.
11.3. In Syamala C. (Supra) the deceased was a final
year B.Tech student. This Court relying on the dictums in
S.Vasanthi (Supra) and Kumud (Supra) fixed the notional income
at ₹25,000/- per month.
11.4. In Meena Pawaia (Supra) relied on by the learned
senior counsel appearing for the third respondent/insurer, the
deceased was a 21 year old 3rd year B.E. student. An amount of
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
8
2025:KER:45638
₹33,000/- was claimed as the income. The Tribunal fixed the
notional income at ₹15,000/- which was reduced by the High Court
to ₹5,000/-. In appeal, the Apex Court re-fixed the notional income
at ₹10,000/-.
12. The materials on record show that the claimant
herein was a young girl aged 21 years, an Engineering student
pursuing her 7th semester B.Tech at NSS College, Palakkad.
Exts.A18 to A22 show the academic brilliance of the claim
petitioner. Ext.A20 reveals that she was a JEE merit scholar and
accordingly she got admission in NSS College, Palakkad on all
India merit basis. That being the position, I find that the notional
income can be fixed at ₹25,000/- per month.
Future treatment and medical expenses and cost of artificial
limb
13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the third
respondent/insurer submitted that though an amount of ₹2,00,000/-
was claimed, an amount of ₹10,00,000/- towards future treatment
and medical expenses has been awarded by the Tribunal and
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
9
2025:KER:45638
therefore award of a further amount of ₹3,00,000/- towards cost of
artificial limb to be changed in future was not required. The cost of
the artificial limb that requires to be periodically changed can be
brought within the compensation awarded under the head future
treatment and medical expenses which have been adequately
compensated, goes the argument. Per contra, it was submitted by
the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that future treatment
expenses and the expenses incurred for replacing the artificial limb
are two distinct heads and hence the Tribunal has rightly granted
compensation under both the heads and therefore, there is no
infirmity calling for an interference in this case.
14. Here it would be apposite to refer to some
precedents of the Apex court on the point. In Sapna v. United India
Insurance Company Limited, 2008 KHC 4793: 2008 (7) SCC 61,
the claimant a 12-year-old girl was injured in a road accident which
occurred on 03.09.1999. Her left leg had to be amputated. It was
contended that a sum of ₹45,000/- had already been expended for
her treatment and that she still required to undergo treatment. She
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
10
2025:KER:45638
required another operation and an artificial limb. It was not disputed
that future treatment was necessary. However, there was no
evidence adduced to show the genuine and reasonable expenditure
that was likely to be incurred by her towards future treatment. In the
absence of any clear-cut estimate, a further sum of ₹ 75,000 under
the said head was granted.
14.1. In Narendra Singh v. Nishant Sharma: 2015
KHC 5382: 2015 (14) SCC 353, the claimant was a 22-year-old
who met with a road accident on 10.10.1998. His right leg below the
knee had to be amputated. The permanent disability was assessed as
60%. The Apex Court awarded an amount of ₹ 1,00,000 for medical
expenses as he had to survive with an artificial limb which required
replacement from time to time.
14.2. In Dinesh Singh v. Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co Ltd.: 2014 KHC 4294: 2014 (9) SCC 241, the
claimant was a B.E. degree holder in metallurgy, aged 24 years,
working as a quality engineer in Hospet Steels Limited, who met
with an accident on 13.04.2004. He sustained grievous and fracture
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
11
2025:KER:45638
injuries, due to which his left leg had to be amputated. The Tribunal
awarded an amount of ₹5,00,000/- towards future medical expenses.
Considering the fact that he required treatment and had to change
his artificial limb as and when required, the compensation was
enhanced by another ₹ 50,000/-.
14.3. In Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance
Company Limited, 2011 KHC 5000: 2011 (10) SCC 683, the
claimant was a 24-year-old man who met with an accident on
14.11.2004, pursuant to which his left leg had to be amputated.
Reference was made to the dictum in Nagappa v. Gurudayal
Singh, 2003 (2) SCC 274, wherein the question considered was
whether it was permissible to award compensation in instalments or
recurring compensation to meet the future medical expenses of the
victim. It was held that it would be difficult to hold that for future
medical expenses which are required to be incurred by a victim,
fresh award could be passed. However, for such medical treatment,
the court has to arrive at a reasonable estimate on the basis of the
evidence brought on record. In the said case it was pointed out that
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
12
2025:KER:45638
for replacing the artificial leg every two to three years, the claimant
would be required to have some sort of operation and change the
artificial leg. At that time, the estimated expense was ₹18,000 /-and
the High Court had awarded the said amount. But for change of
artificial leg every two or three years, no compensation was
awarded. It was held that if ₹1,00,000/- was awarded as additional
compensation, the claimant would be able to meet the future
expenses from the interest of the said amount. It was noticed that
after the aforesaid judgment, the cost of living as also the cost of
artificial limbs and expenses likely to be incurred for periodical
replacement of such limb had substantially increased. Therefore, a
sum of ₹2,00,000/- was awarded for future treatment. It was
observed that if the said amount was deposited in a fixed deposit,
the interest accruing on it would take care of the cost of artificial
limb, fees of the doctor and other ancillary expenses.
14.4. In Lal Singh Marabi v. National Insurance
Company Ltd.: 2017 KHC 2996, the claimant was a 29-year-old
who met with an accident on 13.04.2004. He sustained grievous
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
13
2025:KER:45638
injuries pursuant to which his left leg had to be amputated. The
Tribunal granted an amount of ₹ 60,000 for artificial limb and ₹
40,000 towards medical expenses. The Apex Court raised the
amount towards the cost of the artificial limb to ₹ 1,00,000/-.
15. In the case on hand, there are no materials on
record to assess the expenses that would be incurred for future
treatment. The injuries sustained by the claim petitioner evidenced
by the materials on record are-
“Closed fracture both bone proximal third of right leg,
closed fracture both bone proximal third of left leg with
absent distal vascularity with rigor mortis of left foot and
lacerated wound over right eyebrow and right sub
mandibular region, scalp hematoma ; left leg above knee
amputation with wound debridement and primary skin
suturing of lacerated wounds were done ; closed reduction
and interlocking and nailing of right tibia was done;
complete damage of peroneal arteries from mid leg level
left.”
It cannot be disputed that the injuries are grievous. The left leg of
the claim petitioner had to be amputated below the hip. Therefore,
she requires an artificial limb which will have to be changed
periodically. The claim petitioner has filed I.A.No.2/2024 to receive
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
14
2025:KER:45638
Annexure R1(a) to substantiate her claim that further compensation
is required to be awarded for purchase of an artificial limb which
needs to be changed every 5 to 7 years. Annexure R1(a) dated
29/12/2023 shows that the cost would come to ₹18,82,188/-. The
prayer for receiving this document in evidence is opposed by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent/insurer
who submitted that Annexure R1(a) series is only an invoice and not
a bill and therefore, the same cannot be relied on.
16. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior
counsel for the third respondent/insurer, Annexure R1(a) is only an
invoice of the year 2023. By this time, the claim petitioner must
have purchased a prosthesis. But the same has not been produced.
Ext.A15 utilisation certificate dated 23/02/2018 has been issued by
the same company which has issued Annexure R1(a). Ext.A15
certificate reads thus –
“UTILISATION CERTIFICATE
Date: 23.02.2018
This is certified that Ms. Renjima (D/o MK Rajan, Menoth House,
Perumpilavu P.O, Thrissur) (Reg No: 1701365ER) is Above Knee
amputee and she registered in Endolite India Ltd at Ernakulam for
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
152025:KER:45638
fixing the artificial leg. We undertaken the assessment and
measurement, fitted the prosthetic Leg. Modular advanced Smart
Intelligent prosthesis.
For above prosthetic leg the maintenance is required in every year
as below details with cost.
The components have to be change in every year-Socket, foot, Belt,
Socks, AK fairing, Battery, Gel liner, Total Amount Rs. 131460/-
(Including GST 5%).”
It is stated that the prosthesis has to be changed every 5 to 7 years.
The claim petitioner was only 21 years when the incident took place
in the year 2016. Therefore, she may have to change the artificial
limb a few times in the years to come. In the light of Ext.A15, the
claim for ₹10,00,000/- made in the petition towards the cost of
artificial limb to be changed in future seems reasonable. This
amount can be deposited in a fixed deposit, the interest of which can
be utilized for meeting the expenses towards future treatment and
cost of artificial limb. Hence, no separate amount need be awarded
under expenses for future treatment.
Compensation for continuing or permanent disability and
compensation for loss of earning power
17. An amount of ₹24,48,000/- has been granted by
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
16
2025:KER:45638
the Tribunal as compensation for continuing or permanent disability
and a further amount of ₹5,00,000/- towards loss of earning power.
It was submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
third respondent/insurer that when an amount of ₹24,48,000/- has
been granted under the first head, a further amount under the second
head was unnecessary because the second head comes within the
first head, that is, compensation for continuing or permanent
disability. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
claim petitioner that the Tribunal relying on the decisions of the
Apex court has rightly granted compensation under both the heads
and so there is no infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.
It was also pointed out that though Ext.A14 report of the medical
board shows the permanent disability as 80%, the Tribunal ought to
have accepted A28 disability certificate which shows that the
permanent physical disability caused is 82% .
18. The Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar,
(2011)1 SCC 343 followed in Anthony Swami v. M.D., KSRTC,
(2020)7 SCC 161 has explained the heads under which
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
17
2025:KER:45638
compensation is awarded in personal injury cases as :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would
have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment.
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non – pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence
of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded
only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of
injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
18
2025:KER:45638
evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under
any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future
earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical
expenses, loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage)
and loss of expectation of life. The Apex Court has lucidly set out
the principles for grant of compensation in cases of permanent
physical functional disability as follows: Where the claimant suffers
a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of
compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would
depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on
his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply
the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of
economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the
percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of
earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be
different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some
Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent
(percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
19
2025:KER:45638
loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced
show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45%
loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the
extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent
(percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either
too low or too high a compensation. Ascertainment of the effect of
the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves
three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the
claimant could carry on despite the permanent disability and what he
could not do as a result of the permanent disability (this is also
relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of
amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation,
profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age.
The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally
disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite
of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry
on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
(iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
20
2025:KER:45638
previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or
lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or
can continue to earn his livelihood.
19. In the case on hand, the Tribunal relying on the
dictums in Manickam S. v. Metropolitan Transport Corp. Ltd.,
2013 KHC 4472 : (2013)12 SCC 603 and Sandeep Khanuja v.
Atul Dande, I (2017) ACC 438 (SC) awarded a sum of
₹24,48,000/- (₹15,000/- x 80/100 x 17x 12) towards compensation
for permanent disability and ₹5,00,000/- towards loss of earning
capacity. In Manickam S. (Supra) the question which arose for
consideration was whether compensation in a motor vehicle accident
case is payable to a claimant for both heads, viz., loss of
earning/earning capacity as well as permanent disability. The right
leg below the knee of the claimant therein was amputated and his
permanent disability was assessed as 85%. The High Court held that
if the injured is compensated for loss of earning and loss of earning
capacity, compensation need not be awarded separately for
permanent disability and went on to deduct ₹1,00,000/-, awarded
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
21
2025:KER:45638
under the head ‘permanent disability’, from the total award.
Referring to the dictums in Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh,
1990 KHC 520 : (1990) 3 SCC 723 and B.Kothandapani v. Tamil
Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, 2011 KHC 4500 :
(2011) 6 SCC 420 the Apex court held that separate compensation
under the head permanent disability can be granted even after grant
of compensation under loss of earning/earning capacity and that the
High Court was not justified in disallowing the claim under the head
permanent disability when the claimant therein had sustained 85%
permanent disability by way of amputation of his right leg below the
knee.
19.1. In Sandeep Khanuja (Supra), the Apex Court
adopted the computation laid down in Rajkumar (Supra) for
computing assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent
disability.
20. There can be no doubt that the claim petitioner in
the case on hand is entitled to compensation under (ii)(b), (iii), (v)
and (vi) under the heads pecuniary damages and non pecuniary
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
22
2025:KER:45638
damages referred to in paragraph no.18 of the judgment. Hence as
held in Rajkumar (Supra), under the head Pecuniary damages
(Special Damages), the claimant is entitled to loss of earnings
which she would have made had she not been injured, comprising of
loss of earning during the period of treatment and loss of future
earnings on account of permanent disability. In the light of the
aforesaid dictums of the Apex court, it is clear that compensation in
personal injury cases can be awarded for loss of earning/earning
capacity as well as permanent disability. In the case on hand, as
noticed earlier the Tribunal granted an amount of ₹24,48,000/-
towards compensation for continuing or permanent disability;
₹5,00,000/- towards loss of earning power and an amount of
₹1,00,000/- towards loss of earnings. When compensation towards
loss of earnings and compensation for continuing or permanent
disability have been granted separately, a further amount under loss
of earning power could not have been granted by the Tribunal as the
said component comes within the compensation granted for
continuing or permanent disability. Hence the amount of ₹5,00,000/-
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
23
2025:KER:45638
granted towards loss of earning power is liable to be deducted.
21. Ext.A14, the District Disability Board Certificate
dated 14/09/2017 issued by the General Hospital, Thrisuur, shows
the permanent disability caused to be 80%. The Tribunal accepted
Ext.A14 and fixed the permanent disability at 80%. Ext.A28 is a
disability certificate that has been issued by a retired Additional
Professor, Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Thrissur,
dated 06/10/2018 stating that her permanent physical disability is
82%. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the claim
petitioner that the Medical Board in Ext.A14 has not explained or
given in detail the disability sustained by the claim petitioner and
hence the reason why Ext.A28 was obtained, which gives a detailed
assessment of her disability and so Ext.A28 may be made the basis
for assessment of disability.
22. In the light of Ext.A14, which is admittedly issued
by a Medical Board constituted by the General Hospital, Thrissur,
consisting of 5 experts, Physiatrist, Orthopaedician,
Ophthalmologist, ENT Surgeon and a Psychiatrist, I find that the
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
24
2025:KER:45638
Tribunal was right in relying on Ext.A14 and assessing the disability
as 80%.
23. The Tribunal took 17 as the multiplier. It is
submitted by both sides that the correct multiplier that needs to be
applied is 18 and not 17. Therefore, the multiplier shall be corrected
as 18.
24. The impugned Award is modified to the following
extent :
Sl. Head of claim Amount Amount Modified in
No. claimed Awarded by appeal
Tribunal
1 Loss of earning ₹4,80,000/- ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/-
(No Modification)
2 Loss of earning ₹4,80,000/- — —
next one year (No modification)
3 Transportation ₹50,000/- ₹50,000/- ₹50,000/-
expenses (No modification)
4 Extra ₹50,000/- ₹50,000/- ₹50,000/-
nourishment (No modification)
5 Damage to ₹5,000/- ₹1,000/- ₹1,000/-
clothing etc. (No modification)
6 Medical expenses ₹3,00,000/- ₹8,61,550/- ₹8,61,550/-
(No modification)
7 Bystander's ₹30,000/- ₹5,000/- ₹5,000/-
expenses (No modification)
8 Future treatment ₹2,00,000/- ₹10,00,000/- Deducted
and medical
expenses
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
25
2025:KER:45638
9 Personal ₹2,00,000/- ₹2,00,000/- ₹2,00,000/-
assistance (No modification)
10 Future personal ₹3,00,000/- -- --
attendance (No modification)
11 Compensation ₹2,00,000/- -- --
cost of (No modification)
physiotherapy
12 Cost of wheel ₹50,000/- -- --
chair (No modification)
13 Cost of special ₹50,000/- -- --
dress (No modification)
14 Cost of artificial ₹10,00,000/- ₹3,00,000/- ₹10,00,000/-
limb (to be (including future
changed in future) expenses for
treatment)
15 Cost of jacket to ₹25,000/- -- --
be worn on wheel (No modification)
chair
16 Pain and suffering ₹10,00,000/- ₹5,00,000/- ₹5,00,000/-
(No modification)
17 Compensation for ₹90,00,000/- ₹24,48,000/- ₹64,80,000/-
continuing or
permanent (₹25,000/-
disability +50%)x 12x
18x80%
18 Compensation for ₹23,80,000/- ₹5,00,000/- Deducted as
the loss of earning included in
power column no.17
19 Compensation for ₹5,00,000/- ₹3,00,000/- ₹3,00,000/-
disfigurement (No modification)
20 Loss of amenities ₹10,00,000/- ₹2,00,000/- ₹2,00,000/-
and enjoyment of (No modification)
life
21 Compensation for ₹2,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/-
shortened (No modification)
expectancy of life
22 Compensation for ₹10,00,000/- ₹3,00,000/- ₹3,00,000/-
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
26
2025:KER:45638
loss of marriage (No modification)
prospects
23 Compensation for --- ₹1,00,000/- ₹1,00,000/-
loss of classes and (No modification)
reduction
Total ₹1,85,00,000/- ₹70,15,550/- ₹1,02,47,550/-
In the result, M.A.C.A.No.11/2020 and
M.A.C.A.No.2448/2020 are disposed of as above stated, by
enhancing the compensation by a further amount of ₹32,32,000/-
(total compensation is ₹1,02,47,550/-, that is, ₹70,15,550/- granted
by the Tribunal + ₹32,32,000/- granted in appeal) with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization
(excluding the period of 129 days delay in re-presenting the appeal)
and proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurance company is
directed to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a
period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to
the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with law after
making deductions, if any.
M.A.C.A.Nos. 11 and 2448 of 2020
27
2025:KER:45638
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
ak