Appeal Maintainable Despite Modified MACT Award — Kerala High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review in Motor Accident Claims

“Merely deleting recovery rights of insurer does not affect claimant’s right to seek enhanced compensation” —  In a legally significant pronouncement Kerala High Court held that an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 remains maintainable even when the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) has passed a modified award during the pendency of the appeal, provided such modification only alters ancillary directions like recovery rights, and does not disturb the original compensation awarded.

The judgment was delivered in MACA No. 115 of 2013, titled Khader @ Khadermon (Deceased) Represented by Legal Heirs v. P.G. Christy & Others. The appeal arose from a 2006 accident in which the original claimant was seriously injured, and later died during the pendency of the proceedings. His legal heirs continued the litigation, seeking enhancement of compensation, which the Tribunal had originally fixed at ₹3,92,100.

“Deletion of recovery clause alone cannot make the appeal infructuous” — High Court draws sharp distinction between substantive and procedural modifications

While the insurance company argued that the appeal had become infructuous after the MACT passed a modified award in 2016, the High Court rejected this contention, observing that the Tribunal had merely deleted the liberty granted to the insurer to recover the compensation from the vehicle owner, without modifying the quantum of compensation or any other substantial finding.

Justice Eapen stated:
“The award dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Tribunal does not in any manner affect the claimants’ right to seek enhancement. It only modifies the recovery direction issued earlier and leaves all other aspects of the original award intact. Hence, the appeal is maintainable.”

The Court also noted that the insurance company had participated in the review proceedings before the Tribunal without raising any objections, and crucially, did not challenge the modified award, thereby waiving its right to contest the maintainability of the pending appeal before the High Court.

“Tribunal's Reduction of Disability to 16% Was Arbitrary Where Medical Evidence Established More Serious Impact” — Functional Disability Re-fixed at 25%

One of the core errors identified by the High Court was in the Tribunal's assessment of permanent disability, which was restricted to 16% solely because the doctor did not assess whole-body disability. The Court overruled this reasoning and re-evaluated the injury from a functional disability perspective, fixing it at 25%.

Citing the findings in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma, the Court held:
“The Tribunal's mechanical reduction of the disability percentage, ignoring the nature and extent of injuries documented in Ext.A5 and the oral evidence of PW2, is not sustainable. Functional disability, particularly involving right limbs, clearly impacts earning capacity and must be evaluated accordingly.”

The recalculated amount under the head of permanent disability came to ₹2,47,500, which was ₹1,32,300 more than what had been originally awarded.

“In Absence of Employment Records, Ramachandrappa Provides Fair Basis for Income Estimation in 2006 Accident Claims” — Notional Income Fixed at ₹5,500

The original claimant had claimed a monthly income of ₹35,000, asserting that he was employed abroad at the time of the accident. However, the High Court, finding no credible documentary evidence to support this, applied the principle from Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 13 SCC 236] to fix the income at ₹5,500 per month.

Justice Eapen observed: “A passport alone does not establish actual employment or income. In such circumstances, judicial precedents allow for reasonable estimation. For the year 2006, ₹5,500 is a fair and just figure.”

This upward revision in income basis resulted in proportional increases across multiple heads of compensation, including loss of earnings, disability, and amenities.

“Tribunal Overlooked or Undervalued Genuine Heads of Compensation Despite Serious Injuries” — High Court Steps In to Rectify Injustice

The High Court found that the Tribunal had either completely omitted or grossly undervalued several heads of compensation, including extra nourishment, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and bystander expenses. In light of the claimant’s serious injuries — which included compound fractures, crush injuries, and a degloving injury — the Court revised the award as follows:

Justice Eapen explained: “Given the nature of injuries and treatment duration, the omission to grant compensation under heads such as extra nourishment and bystander expenses is unjustified. Enhancements are warranted.”

Compensation under loss of amenities was doubled from ₹15,000 to ₹30,000, pain and suffering was increased to ₹35,000, extra nourishment was granted ₹6,000 for the first time, and bystander expenses were doubled to ₹6,000. These adjustments contributed to a total enhancement of ₹1,79,300 over and above the original award.

“Interest Denied for Delay Period, But Award Carries 7% p.a. Interest Otherwise” — Delay in Appeal Costs Claimants Accrued Interest

Though the Court enhanced compensation, it also recognized a 105-day delay in filing the appeal and held that the enhanced amount will not carry interest for that delay period. However, beyond that window, interest at the rate of 7% per annum was awarded from the date of the petition until full realization.

The Court directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount within two months, subject to the legal heirs (appellants 2 to 6) furnishing their PAN, Aadhaar and bank details.

Justice Eapen clarified: “In case of non-submission of required documents, the insurer is permitted to deposit the amount directly before the Tribunal. Upon such deposit, the full amount shall be disbursed to the legal heirs in accordance with law.”

Final Takeaway: Modified Tribunal Orders Cannot Impede Compensation Appeals Unless Merits Are Re-adjudicated

This judgment reaffirms the legal position that procedural modifications at the tribunal level—such as setting aside recovery clauses—do not render pending appeals for enhancement of compensation infructuous. The High Court also reinforced the importance of assessing compensation from a holistic, functional standpoint, especially where serious injuries are involved.

Date of Decision: 15 December 2025