Abdul Gafoor v. K.E. Viswanathan and The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. T. Ravikumar
Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2026-05-19
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is partly allowed; the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.26,000 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; no costs awarded.
Final Disposition: Appellant's appeal partly allowed; enhanced compensation awarded; insurer to deposit amount; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Gafoor

Respondents

K.E. Viswanathan
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V.S. Chandrasekharan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. A.R. George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal under MACA No.1711 of 2010 before the Kerala High Court arising from an award by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in O.P.(MV).2815 of 2005, dated 12 November 2009, for injuries sustained on 6 October 2005 while the claimant was travelling in an autorickshaw. The appellant, Abdul Gafoor, claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the Tribunal’s quantum was inadequate under multiple heads—loss of earnings, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, transport to hospital, clothing, and bystander’s expenses—given the injury’s severity and the claimant’s occupation as an auto driver. The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent, and the insurer liable, awarding Rs.27,544 with interest and costs. On appeal, the only issue was enhancement. The High Court notes the accident occurred in 2005 and, applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, re-fixes the claimant’s notional monthly income at Rs.5,000 and recalculates the heads of compensation. It increases certain amounts (transport to hospital, clothing, loss of earnings, bystander’s expenses, extra nourishment, and loss of amenities) and concludes with a total additional compensation of Rs.26,000, at 8% interest from the petition date. The insurer is directed to deposit this amount within two months; no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and seeks enhancement under various heads. Relying on the principle in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, the appellant argues for a higher notional income and recalculation of losses and expenses to reflect the injuries and the period since the accident.

Contentions of Respondents

The record notes that arguments were heard but does not provide a detailed transcript of the respondents’ submissions; the respondents’ position appears to defend the Tribunal’s award and the liability of the insurer without challenging the liability itself in a manner disclosed in the text.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.	[(2011) 13 SCC 236]	Positive	The High Court relies on Ramachandrappa to fix the notional monthly income for calculating compensation (notionally Rs. 5,000) in a 2005 accident, aligning with the Supreme Court's approach for determining income.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/7TH ASHADHA, 1939 MACA.No. 1711 of 2010 ( ) -------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2815/2005 of PRINCIPAL M.A.C.T.,KOZHIKODE DATED 12-11-2009 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------ ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAROLKUTIYIL,, KUMBIYALETH HOUSE, P.O.RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE. ## BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- * 1. K.E.VISWANATHAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT KATTUKANDI, EDATHIL HOUSE, CANAL ROAD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 006. [DELETED] 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, II PRAMOD BUILDINGS, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001. *[RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 04/10/2016 IN IA.3472/2016 IN MACA.1711/2010.] R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.** **========================== M.A.C.A. No.1711 OF 2010 ==========================** Dated this the 28[th] day of June, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** _Anil K. Narendran, J._ This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode dated 12.11.2009 in O.P.(MV).No.2815 of 2005, an application filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on 6.10.2005 while he was travelling in an autorickshaw. At the place of accident, the autorickshaw was hit by a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-11/U-2899 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. As a result of the accident, the appellant/claimant sustained injuries. Claiming a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under different heads for the injuries sustained in the **M.A.C.A.1711/2010** 2 accident, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal. 2. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A5 series were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence. 3. After considering the materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Since the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy, the second respondent insurer was held liable to indemnify the first respondent owner. Under different heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.27,544/- and the second respondent insurer was directed to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal together with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation with a cost of Rs.600/-. 4. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in this appeal. 5. Heard arguments. **M.A.C.A.1711/2010** 3 6. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of the compensation awarded under various heads. 7. The accident is of the year 2005 and at the time of the accident, the appellant/claimant was aged 27 years, eking his livelihood as autorickshaw driver. The fact that at the time of the accident, the appellant himself was driving the autorickshaw would indicate the aforesaid fact. In **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal** **Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.** [ **(2011) 13 SCC 236]** , the Apex Court notionally fixed the monthly income of a coolie, who met with a motor accident in the year 2004 as Rs.4,500/-. In such circumstances, considering the fact that in the instant case, the accident is of the year 2005, we deem it appropriate to re-fix the monthly income of the appellant/claimant notionally at Rs.5,000/-. 8. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads reads thus:- **M.A.C.A.1711/2010** 4 |**_Name of head_**|**_Amount awarded_**| |---|---| |Transport to hospital|Rs.500/-| |Damage to clothing|Rs.250/-| |Loss of earnings|Rs.2000/-| |Bystander's expenses|Rs.1000/-| |Treatment expenses|Rs.6294/-| |Pain and suffering|Rs.16500/-| |Loss of amenities|Rs.1000/-| |**Total**|Rs.27544/-| 9. The injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in the accident, as borne out from the medical records, read thus:- “Blunt injury abdomen, fracture pelvis, pubic rami both superior and inferior and sacroiliac joint disruption, lacerated wound 14x4 cm right thigh entering from hip joint.” Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant had undergone inpatient treatment for a period of 35 days. 10. Towards transportation to hospital and damage to clothing, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.500/- and Rs.250/- respectively. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2005, we deem it appropriate to re-fix the compensation under the above heads as **M.A.C.A.1711/2010** 5 Rs.1,000/- each, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.500/-** and **Rs.750/-** respectively. 11. Towards loss of earning, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, we deem it appropriate to grant loss of earning for a period of three months. Since we have re-fixed the monthly income of the appellant/claimant notionally at Rs.5,000/-, the compensation payable under this head is re-worked as Rs.15,000/-, resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.13,000/-** . 12. Towards bystanders expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-. No amount was granted under the head extra nourishment. Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2005, we deem it appropriate to re-fix the compensation under that head as Rs.5,250/- (150x35) resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.4,250/-** and we also grant a sum of **Rs.3,500/-** (100x35) as compensation towards extra nourishment. **M.A.C.A.1711/2010** 6 13. Towards treatment expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,294/- which represents a just and reasonable compensation under that head. In paragraph 10 of the award, the Tribunal has stated valid reasons for not accepting the entire bills. 14. Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded as sum of Rs.16,500/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained in the accident and the treatment the appellant had undergone, the compensation awarded under that head represents just and reasonable compensation, which requires no interference in this appeal. 15. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, we deem it appropriate to re-fix the compensation under this head as Rs.5,000/- resulting an additional compensation of **Rs.4,000/-** . 16. In the result, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of **Rs.26,000/-** (500+750+13,000+4,250+3,500+4,000) in this appeal, which will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum **M.A.C.A.1711/2010** 7 from the date of the petition till realisation. 17. Since the insurance coverage of the vehicle is not in dispute, the second respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. **Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)** **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **(JUDGE)** **spc/** **M.A.C.A.1711/2010** 8 **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.** **M.A.C.A.1711/2010** 9 **JUDGMENT September, 2010**