IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 MFA.No. 952 of 2002(E) ------------------------------- OPMV.442/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA ...................................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN O.P. (M.V); ------------------------------------------------------- K.J. BOBBY, S/O. JOHNY, KIZHAKUDAN HOUSE, ELENJIPURAM, POST CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN O.P. (M.V): ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. P. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O. P. MUHAMMED, PICHANL HOUSE, KOTTAVAYAL, KOTTANAD POST, MEPPADI VIA., KOTTAPPADI AMSOM, VYTHIRI TALUK. 2. P.P. PARAMESWARAN, S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR PARAKKAL HOUSE, KOVILAKAMKUNDU, NEAR N.S.S. COLLEGE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KALPETTA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI SRI.SAJU.S.A R3 SRI.M.S.PATTALI SRI.T.VINOD KUMAR THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.952 OF 2002 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Appellant claimant sustained serious injuries in an accident on 16.6.1994 while he was riding a motor cycle. Tribunal found that accident occurred due to the negligent driving by the 1st respondent, driver of the vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent and insured by the 3rd respondent Insurance company. Against a claim of Rs.2,50,000/- tribunal only awarded an amount of Rs.12,300/-. Tribunal also exonerated Insurance company as it was not proved that the vehicle was covered by valid insurance policy. According to the appellant, amount awarded was inadequate. It was also contended that offending vehicle was duly insured by the 3rd respondent Insurance company. With regard to the amount awarded, the appellant was an Assistant Manager employed in Harrisons Malayalam Limited. Ext.A7 salary certificate shows that his MFA.952/02 2 monthly salary was Rs.2,950/- at the time of accident. Ext.A3 is the wound certificate. Ext.A4 is the copy of the C.T.Scan report and Ext.A5 is the copy of the discharge summary. After considering the same, tribunal found as follows: “A perusal of the same, would show that in the accident, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries: “Multiple lacerated wound on face, both lips, roots of the nose, upper right thigh 5 x 1 cm, upper left leg 4 x 1 cm, Multiple abrasions over both lower limbs and both hands, Fracture scapula right. Contusions with haematoma and abrasions forehead”. The said documents would further go to show that the petitioner was treated in the P.V.S.Hospital, Calicut as inpatient for a period seven days. Ext.A5 would further go to show that all lacerated wound debrided and sutured in layers, lip sutured both inside and outside skin. Ext.A5 would further go to show that the petitioner was again treated in the said hospital as outpatient and he was examined on 7.7.1994 and on that day, he was advised to avoid lifting weight strenuous activity and driving for three weeks.” Wound certificate also shows that there is frontal bone fracture. Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,000/- for pain and sufferings. Claimants has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- for disability and Rs.50,000/- for loss of earning power. Ext.A6 disability MFA.952/02 3 certificate issued by Orthopaedic Surgeon shows that there is 10% permanent disability. PW2 doctor was examined to prove the same. Since the Doctor deposed that there is 4% disability but it is not mentioned in the disability certificate. Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.3,000/- for disability and loss of earning power. On a reading of the disability certificate, wound certificate etc. we are of the view that petitioner had suffered fracture of skull and right scapula. He is unable to do activities with the right hand and he was advised to avoid lifting weight strenuous activities. Even though no evidence was adduced to show that his salary was reduced as a result of the accident, he has to carry on this defect till the end of his life even after retirement. we are of the view that atleast Rs.7,500/- ought have been awarded for loss of earning power, loss of amenities and after effects of the accidental injuries instead of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, additional compensation payable will be Rs.4,500/-. Policy records shows that it was covered by policy number 100306/31/40/947/93 issued by the 3rd respondent Insurance company. Since the tribunal was of the view that there was no valid insurance MFA.952/02 4 policy, we have directed the counsel for the Insurance company to check whether the vehicle was covered by valid insurance policy. Now it is affirmed by the learned counsel that policy number 100306/31/40/947/93 was issued by the above company covering the offending vehicle during the time of accident. So there is no valid insurance coverage. Hence total amount payable is Rs.16,800/- with the rate of interest as assessed by the tribunal. The above amount of Rs.16,800/- should be deposited by the 3rd respondent Insurance company with 9% interest per annum from the date of application till its deposit less the amount if any already paid. On deposit of the above amount appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. Appeal is allowed to the above extent. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.952 OF 2002 (E) --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 26th March, 2008