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 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1472 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1509/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------- SALIM JAFFAR, KUNJU AHAMMED PURAYIDATHIL THEKKUVASATHU, VELLANA MURI KIDANGANNUR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK BY ADV. SMT.A.B.SHYMOL SMT.LAYA SIMON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. GEETHA NARAYANAN, W/O.NARAYANAN, CHARIVU PURAYIDATHIL KEEZHCHERIMAL, CHENGANNUR. 2. ANANDA KRISHNAN ACHARI, S/O.ARUNACHALAM ACHARI, KUTHIRAVATTATHU HOUSE THITTAMEL, CHENGANNUR 3. THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. ADV. SRI.C.S.KUMARASWAMY FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1472 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1509/2000 on the file of Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara. In this appeal, he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated May 19, 2007 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,05,560/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident. He sustained the following injuries in that accident that occurred on June 6, 2000 at about 3.15 p.m. : Posterior fracture dislocation of left hip with Grade D III B open segmental comminuted fracture both bones of left leg. 2. The accident happened while the claimant was pillion riding on the motor cycle along Panthalam-Chengannur M.C. road and when he reached near Mulakkuzha-Panackavu Junction, he was knocked by the Tata Sumo Van bearing Reg.No.KL 4/D-9190 driven by the second respondent. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under MACA.No.1472/2008 2 Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 7,25,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending van remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending van filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending van by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,05,560/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 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.1472/2008 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 : Loss of earning - Rs. 9,000/- Transportation - Rs.11,500/- Hospitalisation exp. - Rs. 95,647.02 Purchase of medicines - Rs. 12,292.94 Bystander expenses - Rs. 10,400/- Incidental expenses - Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 20,000/- Loss of amenities - Rs. 5,000/- Loss of earing capacity - Rs.36,720/- 8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the disability caused, for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and for pain and suffering endured by the claimant. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1,500/- and the percentage of disability as 12% and adopted a multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs. 36,720/- for the disability caused. According to the claimant, he was a fish seller earning Rs.7,500/- per month. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the MACA.No.1472/2008 4 monthly income of the claimant can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 2,500/-. Ext.A9 certificate of disability issued by the District Medical Board, Pathanamthitta shows that he has suffered a permanent disability of 22%. No reason is stated by the Tribunal for reducing the permanent disability to 12%. In the nature of the disabilities caused to the claimant as seen from Ext.A9, we feel that the 22% disability assessed by the Medical Board appears to be correct. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 17 is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,12,200- ( 22% x 2500 x 12 x 17) Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.75,480/-. 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering endured and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the pain and suffering endured and Rs.20,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life would be reasonable. 11. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded MACA.No.1472/2008 5 Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of income for 6 months @ Rs. 1500/- per month. The nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant shows that he must have been disabled for 12 months for which he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- @ Rs. 2500/- per month. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same 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.1,16,480/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% 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.1472/2008 6 MACA.No.1472/2008 7