IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 186 of 2002() --------------------- OPMV.5229/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- A.PRAMEELA, D/O. ANDI, AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT ATTIYADIYIL HOUSE, NARAYANA NAGARAM, VADAKARA AMSOM DESOM, P.O.VADAKARA - 1, PIN-673 101, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. C.BAVA, S/O. MOHAMMED, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT CHAKKIYATHIL HOUSE P.O.TANALUR, PIN-676 307, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (OWNER OF LORRY KRZ 6507). 2. V.K.RAJEEVAN, S/O. BAPPU, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VATTAKKANDIYIL HOUSE, POST MEMONDA, PIN-673 104, VADAKARA TALUK (DRIVER OF LORRY KRZ 6507, DL.NO.2926/89, DB. BADGE NO.863/91, VALID TILL 27.12.95). 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KEYEES SHOPPING CENTRE, NARANGAPURAM P.O., TELLICHERRY, PIN-670 101, (INSURER OF LORRY KRZ 6507, POLICE NO.571101/IZ.301/117593/94, VALID FROM 29-4-94 TO 28-4-95). 4. T.BALAN, S/O. APPU, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, KOLARATT STREET, P.O.CHOMBALA, PIN-673 308, VADAKARA TALUK (OWNER OF BUS KEZ 3161). Kss ..2/- ...2..... MFA.No.186/2002 5. P.A.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANIYANKANDY HOUSE, PERAMBRA AMSOM, KALLODE DESOM, P.O.MOORIKUTHIL, PIN-673 525, KOYLANDY TALUK, (DRIVER OF BUS KEZ 3161, DL.NO.1118/70,BADGE NO.5/75,VALID TILL 29-03-96). 6. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE,MAIN ROAD P.O.VADAKARA-1, POLICY NO. 100305/31/40/11788, VALID FROM 28-03-94 TO 26-01-95). BY ADV. SRI.ABOOBACKER PULICKOOL - R1 SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON - R3 SMT.K.C.BEENA - R6 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.186 OF 2002 (D) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Appellant/petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident occurred on 26.7.1994. At that time, she was only 20 years old. She claimed compensation of Rs.8 lakhs. Tribunal found that accident occurred while she was travelling in a bus and the bus collided with lorry bearing registration No.KRZ 6507 and then the bus again collided with another lorry bearing registration No.KL.11.A-7569, and according to the tribunal, drivers of both the vehicles insured by 3rd and 6th respondents Insurance companies are equally responsible for the accident and directed them to pay compensation and the amount awarded was only Rs.2,61,300/-. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in this appeal and we are considering the same. MFA.186/02 2 2. Appellant was aged 20 years at the time of accident. Taking guidelines from the 2nd Schedule, 16 was taken as the multiplier. Even though it was contended that the persons between the age group 20 to 25 should be granted a higher multiplier considering the increase in longevity, a higher multiplier should be accepted. We are of the opinion that taking guidelines from the 2nd Schedule, 16 is taken as the multiplier and no enhancement is needed. With regard to the monthly income, tribunal has taken Rs.18,000/- as the annual income and the exact income was not proved. According to the tribunal, she was a coolie. We see no ground to change the income also. Doctor has assessed 40% disability. But that was not accepted by the tribunal. Entire medical expenses of Rs.69,850/- was reimbursed. For compensation for pain and sufferings, Rs.20,000/- was awarded. We see no ground to change the same. Tribunal found that she was under treatment for six months and was unable to do anything for the six months and Rs.7,000/- was given for loss of earning. After taking Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income, for six months MFA.186/02 3 loss of earning will be Rs.9,000/-. So, she is entitled to Rs.2,000/- more under that ground. Now we will come to the disability. Ext.A10 treatment cum disability certificate reads as follows: “She had (1) grade III compound fracture of both bones (R) leg (2) Grade III compound fracture both bones left leg. She was treated by wound debridement and external fixation for right leg and primary wound debridement and POP for left leg. External fixation for left leg was done on 8.8.1994. Wound got infected and she needed repeated slough cuttings, antibiotics and blood transfusion. On 12.9.1994 skin grafting was done on both legs. Soles flap cover was done on 17.10.1994 for right leg. But flap necrosed. On 14.11.1994 cross leg flap from left thigh was done to cover defect on his right leg. He was discharged on 24.1.1995. She was readmitted on 28.4.1995 (I.P.17073). With non union of fracture both legs. Ilizarov ring fixation was applied on 4.5.1995 on her right leg and to her left leg on 18.5.1995. She was discharged on 24.6.1995. She was readmitted on 11.9.1995 (I.P.38533). Readjustment of ilizarov assembly and correction of foot deformity was done. She was discharged on 12.10.1995. She was readmitted on 19.2.1996 (I.P.8045). Ilizarov rings were removed on 20.2.1996. Bilateral P.T.B. Casts were given. MFA.186/02 4 Now she is able to walk with aid of two crutches and patella tendon bearing caliper to both lower limbs. She had adherent scar on anterior aspect of both legs and flap cover to her (R ) leg. Knee flexion is 900 on her left side and 800 on right side. She has draining sinus on her right leg. She has 50 equines deformity on her right foot. No further movement possible in ankle or subtalar joint. Foot remain neutral on the left side with no further movement possible in either ankle or subtalar joints. She has no toe movements on her right foot. X-ray shows that fracture has united on left side but has not united on her right side.” She was 20 years old at the time of accident and it is her case that she had the disability through out her life and her marriage prospects has declined. There is disfigurement also as she has to walk with crutches. She will not be able to get any employment. For compensation for discomforts, loss of marriage prospects, loss of amenities etc. only Rs.15,000/- was granted. According to the Insurance company, disability certificate was issued wrongly and percentage of disability certified was not permanent. Considering the injuries caused MFA.186/02 5 to a 20 year old girl due to the accident, we are of the opinion that another Rs.15,000/- should be granted under that head. We are of the opinion that compensation granted under other heads are just and reasonable and no enhancement is required. Hence, the additional amount comes to Rs.17,000/- and the above Rs.17,000/- should be deposited by the 3rd and 6th respondents in equal proportion with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the above amount, appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. This appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.186 OF 2002 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 17th June, 2008