IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 4 of 2004() -------------------- OPMV.211/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- THOMAS V.A., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY, VALIATHAYYIL, WARD NO. VII, MARARIKULAM SOUTH PANCHAYAT. BY ADV. SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. VENOGOPAL S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, MAILANTHARAYIL, EAST OF RAMAVARMA JUNCTION, WARD NO.VII, ARYAD PANCHAYAT, AVALOOKUNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. JOHNY S/O. PETER, PUTHENPURACKAL VEETIL, NORTH EAST OF KORTHASSERY TEMPLE, WARD NO.IV, MARARIKULAM SOUTH PANCHAYAT, POLLATHAI P.O. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R3 RAJAN P KALLIYATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.4 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.211/1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. He was aged 35 at the time of the accident and as a fisher man, he used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month. He sustained the following injuries in a motor accident which occurred on June 22, 1997 at about 6.30 p.m.; Calf area of the left leg swollen and tenderness, dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulsation on left leg, NOT FELT dinit cold paraesthesia 2. The accident happened while the claimant was walking along the side of Kalavoor-Kattoor road and reached near Leprosy junction, he was knocked down by a scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-4D 5775. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the rider of the offending scooter, the claimant filed the O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.1,39,800/- against respondents 1 to 3, the owner, rider and insurer MACA.No.4/2004 2 of the offending scooter. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the rider of the offending scooter respectively, remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, Insurer of the offending scooter, filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. This O.P. was jointly tried along with another O.P. filed by another injured person and a common award was passed. Pws 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of 17,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.5,00/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the MACA.No.4/2004 3 second respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 7. The break up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under : Disability - Rs. 10,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 4,000/- Medical expenses - Rs. 1,000/- Damage to clothing, transport to hospital, bystander expenses etc. - Rs. 2,000/- 8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for the disability caused and for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and for pain and suffering endured. 9. The Tribunal awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the disability caused which appears to be very low. The claimant claims to be a Carpenter earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. Therefore, we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 2,000/-. He was aged 35 at the time of the accident. Therefore, a multiplier of 17 would be reasonable in this case. As regards the MACA.No.4/2004 4 percentage of disability, though it is stated in Ext.A9 and testified by PW3, the doctor that he has suffered a permanent disability of 15%, taking into consideration the nature of the disabilities caused to him, we feel that his percentage of disability can be fixed at 7%. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.28,560/- ( 7% x 2000 x 12 x 17). Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 18,560/-. 10. No compensation was seen awarded for the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- would be reasonable for the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. 11. For the pain and suffering endured by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 4,000/- which appears to be very low. Having regard to the nature of the injury sustained, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 7,500/- would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same MACA.No.4/2004 5 to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. 12. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 27,060/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The Appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.4/2004 6 MACA.No.4/2004 7 MACA.No.4/2004 8 MACA.No.4/2004 9