IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 MACA.No. 1016 of 2006(C) ------------------------ OPMV.760/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- SUNNY, S/O. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT THATTIL HOUSE, MICHEALGIRI P.O., NACHIVAYAL, MARAYOOR, NOW RESIDING AT THATTIL HOUSE, NELLIKUZHI KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADVS. SMT.ANNIE PAUL, SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K. AYOOB, M/S. AYOOB COMPANY LIMITED, EDAMATTOM P.O., THRISSUR. 2. M.K. BABU, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, PRABHA VILASOM, KARITHOTTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,TRICHUR-680 001. 4. LINGARAJ, H.NO.453/11, PERIAVURAI ESTATE, MUNNAR. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,THODUPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE R3 & R5 BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 1016 OF 2006 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.760/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated November 5, 2005 awarding a compensation of ` 51,500/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The accident happened on February 2, 2002 at K.D.H. Village. While the claimant was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.KL-02/D 3067 from Munnar to Marayoor, it collided head on with a lorry bearing registration No.KL-8/L 5793, driven by the second respondent. He sustained lacerated wound over (R) eyebrow and laceration (R) upper eye lid. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the claimant MACA 1016/2006 2 filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of ` 2,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1, 2 and 4, the owner and driver of the lorry and owner of the jeep respectively, remained absent and they were set ex parte by the Tribunal. Respondents 3 and 5, the insurer of the lorry and jeep respectively, though entered appearance did not file any written statement. Exts.A1 to A13(b) series were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the second respondent, the driver of the offending lorry, and awarded a compensation of ` 51,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimant has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the counsel for the claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the MACA 1016/2006 3 Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent is not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question, which arises for consideration, is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ` 51,500/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Loss of earning : ` 3,000 Transportation expenses : ` 2,000 Damage to clothing : ` 500 Treatment expenses : ` 14,000 Extra nourishment : ` 1,000 Bystander's expenses : ` 1,000 Pain and suffering : ` 10,000 Loss of amenities and : ` 20,000 Enjoyment in life. ------------------ Total : ` 51,500 ======= 7. The counsel for the claimant points out that no compensation was awarded for the disability caused. He sought enhancement of compensation on other heads. 8. As directed by us, the claimant appeared before MACA 1016/2006 4 the Medical Board of Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The Board has assessed percentage of disability as 30% to his right eye, as he was suffering from optic atrophy right eye with constricted visual field 10 degree. Therefore, we feel that the claimant is entitled to compensation for the disability caused. The claimant was a Mason earning ` 5,000/- per month, according to him. The certificate issued by the Medical Board is marked as Ext.X1. Therefore, we feel that his monthly income can reasonably be fixed at ` 2,500/-. As the Medical Board has assessed 30% disability to his right eye, we feel that whole body disability can reasonably be fixed at 20%. As he was aged 33 at the time of the accident, we feel that a multiplier of 17 would be reasonable. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of ` 1,02,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. 9. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an MACA 1016/2006 5 additional compensation of ` 1,02,000/-. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 6% per annum, which appears to be very low. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realization. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending lorry shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimant. 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. mn