Kerala High Court
Marshel Joseph @ Babu vs Branch Manager on 15 June, 2026
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1948
MACA NO. 3525 OF 2023
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.03.2023 IN OPMV NO.362 OF 2019 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN OP(MV):
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH MANAGER, PARAMESWARAN PILLAI BHAVAN, HOSPITAL
ROAD, KOLLAM. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, PADMA
JUNCTION,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035
BY ADV SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN OP(MV):
1 MARSHEL JOSEPH @ BABU
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O STEPHEN, SHALOM NAGAR 39, PORT, KOLLAM (REPRESENTED
BY HIS WIFE, THE 2ND PETITIONER AS NEXT FRIEND), PIN -
691006
2 MARY
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. MARSHEL JOSEPH @ BABU, KADAPPURAM PURAMBOKE,
MOOTHAKKARA, KOLLAM (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF HER HUSBAND,
THE 1ST PETITIONER.), PIN - 691013
BY ADV SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 15.06.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.322/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1948
MACA NO. 322 OF 2024
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.03.2023 IN OPMV NO.362 OF 2019 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOLLAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 MARSHEL JOSEPH @ BABU
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O STEPHEN, SHALOM NAGAR39, PORT, KOLLAM (REPRESENTED
BY HIS WIFE, THE 2ND PETITIONER AS NEXT FRIEND), PIN -
691006
2 MARY
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O MARSHEL JOSEPH @ BABU, KADAPPURAM PURAMBOKE,
MOOTHAKKARA, KOLLAM FOR AND ON BEHALF OF HER HUSBAND
1ST PETITIONER, PIN - 691013
BY ADV SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PARAMESWARAN PILLAI
BHAVAN, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
BY ADV SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 15.06.2026, ALONG WITH MACA.3525/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
3
P.M. MANOJ, J
------------------
MACA No. 3525 of 2023
and
MACA No.322 of 2024
----------------------
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2026
JUDGMENT
The captioned appeals are preferred against the award dated
24.03.2023 passed by the MACT, Kollam. MACA No. 3525 of 2023
is preferred by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant, whereas MACA
No. 322 of 2024 is preferred by the claimants on the ground of
inadequacy of the compensation.
2. The brief facts involved in the case are as follows: On
18.10.2018 at around 11:30 p.m., while the claimant was riding a
motorcycle bearing registration No. KL 02 AP 5954 from north to
south along the Kollam Taluk Junction-Chamakkada road, and had
reached Kalluppalam, a car bearing registration No. KL-02 AC 4567,
driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit
the motorcycle. Resultantly, the claimant sustained injuries. He was
initially taken to the District Hospital, Kollam, and from there shifted
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
4
to Travancore Medical College Hospital, Kollam, where he
underwent treatment. He claimed a total compensation of
Rs.75,00,000/-.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner-cum-driver of the car, and
the 2nd respondent is its insurer. The 1st respondent, in his written
statement, denied the allegations in the claim petition and
contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
claimant himself. He further stated that the vehicle had a valid
insurance policy at the time of the accident. The 2nd respondent also
filed a written statement disputing the age and income of the
claimant. He further contended that the claimant sustained only
minor injuries, denied any permanent disability, and claimed that
the compensation sought was exorbitant. Additionally, he alleged
collusion between the claimant and the 1st respondent.
4. The Tribunal framed issues for adjudication regarding
whether there was any negligence on the part of the 1st
respondent, who is liable to pay the compensation, and the
quantum of compensation. The Tribunal marked Exhibits A1 to A14
and X1.
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
5
5. On evaluating Exts. A1 (FIR) and A4 (FIS), Exts. A6 (Scene
Mahazar) and A3 (AMVI Report), and relying on the final report
wherein the driver was charge-sheeted under Sections 279, 337,
and 338 of the IPC and Sections 134(a) & (b) of the MV Act, the
Tribunal concluded that the 1st respondent was negligent. It further
held that since there was a valid insurance policy, which was
admitted, the 2nd respondent is liable to indemnify the 1st
respondent and pay the compensation to the claimant.
6. The Tribunal considered the quantum of compensation by
taking into account the age of the claimant and his claim that he
was earning a monthly income of Rs.35,000/-. On evaluating the
nature of the injuries, the duration of hospitalisation, the passbook
issued by the Fishermen Welfare Fund Board, the photographs of
the claimant, the medical bills, the discharge summary, and the
disability certificate (Ext.X1), it is evident that the claimant has
suffered a 90% permanent disability which is progressive in nature.
Based on these, the Tribunal fixed the notional income of the
claimant at Rs.12,000/- per month.
7. However, this fixation is vehemently opposed by the
learned counsel for the appellant in MACA No. 322 of 2024 on the
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
6
ground that the claimant, being a fisherman as well as a boat
mechanic, is a skilled labourer and is thus entitled to higher wages
than the amount fixed by the Tribunal. In support of this contention,
the learned counsel placed reliance on two Government Orders
(GOs) issued by the Labour and Rehabilitation Department, namely
GO(MS) No. 113/2011/LBR dated 09.08.2011 and GO(P) No.
10/2022/LBR dated 22.02.2022, wherein the minimum daily wages
for men engaged in fishing were fixed at Rs. 225/- and Rs. 600/-
respectively.
8. Relying on the reported decisions in Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. v. Mujeeb Rahman A.P. [2025 (1)
KHC 606] and Master Jyothisraj Krishna @Jyothi Krishna v.
Sunny George [2025 (1) KHC 348], the learned counsel contended
that the notional income should be fixed based on the minimum
wages prescribed for skilled workers as per the relevant State
Notifications. Specific reference was also made to GO(P) No.
56/2017/Fin. dated 28.04.2017, issued by the Finance Department,
wherein the minimum wage for skilled workers was fixed at Rs.
17,325/- per month with effect from 01.04.2017.
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
7
9. On considering these submissions, and with respectful
disagreement with my learned brother, it is observed that GO(P)
No. 56/2017/Fin. was issued by the Finance Department specifically
for engaging daily-rated or contract employees under various
government departments. A traditional fisherman cannot be
equated with the category of persons contemplated under the said
Finance Department order. Furthermore, it appears that no specific
notification has been issued by the Labour Department–which is
the authorized statutory department under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948–explicitly fixing the minimum wages for traditional
fishermen.
10. A scrutiny of the Labour Department orders dated
09.08.2011 and 22.02.2022 reveals that there is no precise periodic
quantification of minimum wages for workers engaged in fishing,
including vessel or boat drivers. Under the 2011 GO, a minimum
guaranteed amount was fixed at Rs.225/- per day, whereas
Rs.600/- per day was fixed as the minimum wage only in the year
2022 (a gap of more than ten years).
11. Since there is a span of over a decade between these two
notifications, the daily wage fixed under the 2011 GO needs to be
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
8
adjusted incrementally to arrive at a fair figure for the year of the
accident. By distributing the total wage increase over the ten-year
intervening period, the average annual increment comes to Rs. 40/-
per year [(600 – 200)/10].
12. The accident occurred in the year 2018, which is seven
years after the 2011 GO. Therefore, the calculated daily wage
increase for 2018 would be Rs.480/- [(40 x 7) +200]. Then the
monthly income would come to Rs.12,480/- (480 x 26). Given that
the claimant is a technically qualified, skilled person (a boat
mechanic), it is appropriate to round this figure up to Rs.15,000/-
per month. Notably, this specific fishing sector GO is silent
regarding the Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) that is typically
granted in other minimum wage notifications.
13. The other contention, raised by the appellant/insurer in
MACA No. 3525 of 2023, pertains to the choice of the multiplier.
The insurer argues that since the claimant had completed 40 years
and 5 months at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier
should be 14, relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court
in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corpn. [(2009) 6 SCC 121].
In the absence of any reliable contrary evidence regarding the exact
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
9
age at which the threshold is crossed, this contention raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant in MACA No. 3525 of 2023 cannot
be sustained. Moreover, at the time of the accident, the claimant
had not yet crossed 41 years of age. So, the Tribunal adopted the
correct multiplier of 15.
14. Furthermore, it is contended by the appellant/insurer in
MACA No. 3525 of 2023 that since the claimant was 40 years and 5
months at the time of the accident, the addition for future prospects
should be restricted to 25% instead of the 40% granted by the
Tribunal. An addition of 40% is permissible only when the victim is
below the age of 40 years. Consequently, the Tribunal erred in
granting 40% towards future prospects, as the Apex Court in Sarla
Verma (supra) and subsequently clarified in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [2017 (5) KHC 350] explicitly ruled that
for a self-employed or fixed-wage individual aged between 40 and
50 years, the future prospects must be capped at 25%.
15. Turning to the physical condition of the victim, it is
observed that the 1st appellant in MACA No. 322 of 2024 is
completely bedridden. This necessitated the 2nd appellant to
actively contest and prosecute this case on his behalf. This state of
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
10
health clearly demonstrates that the appellant is entirely
incapacitated and unable to undertake his customary work or
manage his day-to-day activities. Although the Medical Board has
assessed his permanent physical disability at 90%, taking into
account the pathetic situation to which the 1st appellant has been
reduced, and bearing in mind that the Motor Vehicles Act is a piece
of beneficial social legislation, I deem it appropriate to add 10%
towards his functional disability. Accordingly, the functional
disability is treated as 100%. Though this enhancement was
vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the insurer in MACA
No. 3525 of 2023, the total loss of earning capacity must be
computed at 100%. Therefore, the compensation under the head of
permanent disability is recalculated as:
(Rs.15,000 + 25% of Rs.15,000) x 12 x 15 = Rs.33,75,000/-)
16. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in MACA No.
3525 of 2023 further contended that the amount awarded towards
bystander expenses is exorbitant because the Tribunal incorrectly
applied a multiplier of 15. This contention was countered by the
learned counsel for the claimants in MACA No. 322 of 2024, who
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Master Jyothis Raj
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
11
Krishna supra. In that case, this Court, after evaluating the settled
legal position established by the Apex Court in various decisions–
most notably in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Others [(2020) 4
SCC 413]–held that the multiplier system must be applied while
calculating attendance charges or bystander expenses in claims
arising under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In
paragraph 22 of Kajal (supra), the Apex Court observed:
“The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court @
Rs. 2,500/- per month for 44 years which works out to Rs.
13,20,000/-. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system.
The multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When
compensation is awarded in a lump sum, various factors are taken
into consideration. When compensation is paid in a lump sum, this
Court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier
system should be followed not only for determining the
compensation on account of loss of income but also for
determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was
recognized by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K.
Veluswami [AIR 1962 SC 1]. The multiplier system factors in the
inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum award,
the longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as the
uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the
multiplier method has been recognized as the most realistic and
reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
12and thus results in the award of ‘just compensation’ within the
meaning of the Act.”
17. Under these circumstances, bystander expenses must be
worked out by applying the appropriate multiplier to the benchmark
rate fixed for attendants. As per GO(P) No. 202/2016/Labour dated
29.12.2016, the monthly wage for caregivers looking after the elderly,
patients, and the differently-abled was fixed at Rs.5,226/- per month.
Along with a 5% Dearness Allowance (DA), this amount comes to
Rs.5,487/-. Since this Government Order dates back to 2016 and the
accident occurred later in the year 2018, it is fair to round this figure
to Rs.5,500/- per month for the purpose of this calculation.
18. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the
claimants that since the appellant is 40 years of age and completely
bedridden, his condition necessitates the assistance of at least two
attendants. Relying on the decision rendered by this Court in
Master Jyothis Raj Krishna (supra), the counsel submitted that
the claimant is entitled to compensation for two attendants.
19. Conversely, this claim was vehemently opposed by the
learned counsel for the insurer in MACA No. 3525 of 2023, who
argued that the Tribunal applied an incorrect multiplier of 15 to
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
13
grant an excessive and baseless sum of Rs.9,00,000/- under the
head of ‘bystander expenses.’ The insurer further contended that
no cogent evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to prove that
the claimant was entirely bedridden or incapacitated.
20. Dealing with the standard of proof required in such
matters, the Apex Court in Bimla Devi and Others v. Himachal
Road Transport Corpn. and Others [(2009) 13 SCC 530] held
that claimants in motor accident cases are only required to establish
their case on the touchstone of a preponderance of probabilities,
and the strict standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt cannot
be applied.
21. In the case at hand, a review of the cause title itself
reveals that the wife of the claimant had to approach the Tribunal
to prosecute the case on behalf of her husband. This circumstance,
coupled with the medical evidence on record, sufficiently establishes
that the claimant is completely bedridden, and no further strict
ocular proof is required to draw this inference. Consequently, taking
note of the pathetic physical condition of the claimant, I have no
hesitation in holding that he requires the assistance of at least two
bystanders, and the compensation must be worked out accordingly.
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
14
Hence, the bystander expenses can be recalculated as Rs.5,500 x
2 x 12 x 15 = Rs.19,80,000/-.
22. However, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer in
MACA No. 3525 of 2023 contended that since the functional
disability of the claimant has been assessed at 100% and
compensation is being granted for the total loss of earning capacity,
the separate amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of
earnings cannot be sustained. As this submission was not opposed
by the learned counsel for the claimants in MACA No. 322 of 2024,
the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head ‘loss of
earnings’ is hereby set aside to avoid duplication.
23. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants
in MACA No. 322 of 2024 contended that the Tribunal failed to
award any compensation under the head of future medical
treatment. To substantiate this claim, the appellants produced
additional medical bills covering the years 2020 to 2024, totalling
Rs.15,000/-. Given the progressive nature of the claimant’s 90%
physical disability and his completely bedridden state, it can be
reasonably presumed that he will require lifelong medical care.
Therefore, I deem it just and proper to award a lump sum amount
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
15
of Rs.3,00,000/- towards future medical treatment. The claimants
are also entitled to receive a sum of ₹15,000/- towards medical
expenses, as evidenced by the additional medical bills produced
before this Court.
24. Consequent to the aforementioned observations and
findings, both appeals are partially allowed, and the award dated
24.03.2023 passed by the MACT, Kollam, is modified accordingly as
tabulated hereunder:
Head of Claim Amount Amount Modified amount in
Sl. claimed awarded Appeal
No. (in ₹) by
(in ₹)
Tribunal
(in ₹)1 Loss of earnings 5,00,000 1,08,000 –
2 Partial loss of 2,00,000 – –
earnings
3 Transport to 50,000 20,000 20,000/-
hospital No modification
4 Extra Nourishment 40,000 10,000 10,000/-
No modification
5 Damages to clothing 10,000 2,000 2,000/-
and articles No modification
6 Bystanders 5,00,000 9,00,000 19,80,000/-
expenses (5500x2x12x15)
7 Medical Bill & Others 10,00,000 4,29,343 4,44,343/-
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
16
8 Compensation for pain 5,00,000 2,00,000 2,00,000/-
and suffering
9 Compensation for 30,00,000 27,21,600 33,75,000/-
continuing (Rs. 15,000
Permanent disability + 25% of Rs. 15,000)
× 12 × 15
10 Compensation for loss 5,00,000 2,00,000 2,00,000/-
of amenities No modification
11 Compensation for loss 2,00,000 - -
of earning power
12 Compensation for 10,00,000 - 3,00,000/-
future treatment
Total 75,00,000 45,90,943 Rs.65,31,343/-
In the result, the appeals are disposed of, enhancing the
compensation by a further amount of ₹19,40,400/- (65,31,343 –
45,90,943) (Rupees Nineteen lakhs forty thousand four hundred
only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. It is
clarified that out of the total compensation, Rs.19,80,000/- granted
towards future bystander expenses and Rs.3,00,000/- awarded
towards future treatment will carry interest from the date of award
and not from the date of petition. The respondent/insurer is directed
to deposit the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal within a period
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
17
of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment. On deposit of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse
the same to the claim petitioner at the earliest in accordance with
law after making deductions, if any.
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
ttb
2026:KER:47442
MACA Nos.3525/23 & 322/24
18
APPENDIX OF MACA NO. 322 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 ORIGINAL OP TICKET ISSUED BY A.A. RAHIM
MEMORIAL DISTRICT HOSPITAL DATED 15-07-2020
Annexure A2 ORIGINAL OP TICKET ISSUED BY A.A. RAHIM
MEMORIAL DISTRICT HOSPITAL DATED 22-09-2021
Annexure A3 ORIGINAL OP TICKET ISSUED BY A.A. RAHIM
MEMORIAL DISTRICT HOSPITAL DATED 12-03-2022
Annexure A4 ORIGINAL PRESCRIPTION CHART ISSUED BY DR.
RAYMOND MORRIS DATED 02-04-2023
Annexure A5 ORIGINAL TREATMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.
H. ULSAH DATED 04-10-2024
Annexure A6 ORIGINAL MEDICAL BILLS OF VARIOUS DATES FOR A
TOTAL RS. 17,344/-
