IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1097 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.2699/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/THIRD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, THRISSUR REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: ---------------------------------------------- 1. RAVI, S/O. CHATHAN, KUNTHALAN HOUSE CHEROOR P.O., MARUTHUR, THRISSUR. 2. P. MUKUNDAN, S/O. GOVINDA MENON, SOBHA VIHAR, VIYYUR P.O., THRISSUR. 3. SUDHEEP, S/O. KUTTAN, PANAYOLA (H), LALOOR, ARANATTUKARA P.O, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.C.P.SAJI FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1097 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the third respondent Insurance Company in O.P. (MV)No.2699/1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. In this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated April 3, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,01,300/- to the claimant, who is respondent No.1 in this appeal, for the loss caused to him on account of the following injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that occurred on June 27,1999 at about 4 p.m. : Lacerated wound on the left ankle Compound bimalleolar fracture of left ankle Type III open fracture dislocation of left ankle. 2. The accident happened while the claimant was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-8/J 3805 driven by the second respondent in the O.P. along Cherur-Maruthur road and when he reached near St.Joseph's Convent, Cherur, the second respondent lost MACA.No.1097/2004 2 the control of the vehicle, as a result of which the autorickshaw capsized. Alleging negligence against the second respondent in the O.P., the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,90,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P., the owner and the driver of the offending autorickshaw remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent/appellant, the insurer of the offending autorickshaw filed a written statement admitting the policy. 3. Pw 1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent/appellant. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent in the O.P. and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,01,300/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.1,000/-. The third respondent Insurance Company has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company MACA.No.1097/2004 3 and the counsel for the claimant. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent in the O.P. is not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,01,300/- . The break up of the compensation awarded is as under : Loss of earning - Rs. 10,000/- Transport to hospital - Rs. 1,500/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 1,500/- Damage to clothing - Rs. 300/- Treatment expenses - Rs. 19,000/- Future treatment exp. - Rs. 7,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 20,000/- Disability - Rs.1,02,000/- Disfigurement - Rs. 40,000/- 7. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the period of treatment the claimant has undergone, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and not excessive. That being so, the appeal has to MACA.No.1097/2004 4 be dismissed holding that the claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.1097/2004 5