IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 456 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.1736/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT -------------------------------- C.H.ASSAIN @ HASSAIN, S/O.ALIKUTTY, CHOLAKKARA HOUSE, ELAMARAM, CHERUVAYOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KEERAN, S/O.BICHATHAN, ATHIKODANKUZHI HOUSE, OLAVATTOOR, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DT. (DRIVER). 2. M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI. ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R2 SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT FOR R1 SRI.K.N.ABHILASH FOR R1 SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT FOR R1 SMT.P.K.BEENA FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.456 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The appellant was involved in a road traffic accident that occurred on August 26, 1992. At the time of the accident, he was working as a driver in M/s. Grasim Industries , Mavoor, Calicut and drawing a salary of Rs. 4306.66 as could be seen from Ext.A3 salary certificate. The offending vehicle driven by respondent No.1 was admittedly insured with respondent No.2. The appellant claimed a total sum of Rs.1,10,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. 2. The Tribunal framed the following issues : “1. Whether the 1st respondent was negligent in causing the accident ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation ?If so, what is the quantum ? 3. Who is liable to pay the compensation ?” 3. The Tribunal dealt with issue Nos.1 and 2 thus : “Issue No.1 : Ext.A1 is the F.I.R. registered against R1 for negligent driving. There is no contra evidence. Hence I find R1 was negligent. MACA.No.456/06 2 Issue No.2 Petitioner was 58 years old who suffered 1) Comminuted fracture upper 1/3 of tibia and fracture fibula with punch wound 1.5 cm. diametre at the fracture site. 2) Lacerated wound muscle deep 1/3 of leg medial aspect . 3) Multiple injuries all over the body. Petitioner is entitled to the following compensation. Transport to hospital - Rs. 500/- Medical expenses - Rs. 561/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 10,000/- Loss of wages for 11 months - Rs. 22,000/- Total - Rs.33,061/- ===========” 4. We have extracted the relevant portion of the award to express our anguish and anxiety about the manner in which certain Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act are dealing with claim petitions that are being filed by the victims of accidents. There is yet another reason why we have chosen to do so in this case. We have had occasion to deal with quite a few awards passed by this particular Tribunal, while sitting in this jurisdiction. It has come to our notice that this Tribunal has been adopting this method of disposal almost on a regular basis. We are of the view that it is time that the learned Judge is reminded that dealing with claim petitions of accident- victims is not such a casual, trivial or lackadaisical exercise. MACA.No.456/06 3 5. It has to be borne in mind that every litigant who approaches the court, hopes and believes that his case will be considered and dealt with the requisite seriousness that is expected from a judicial Forum. Undoubtedly, frivolous claims should be ruthlessly discarded. But in deserving cases, the Tribunal must show empathy to the unfortunate victims and they must get adequate compensation commensurate with the damage caused by the accident. If we peruse the manner in which issue No.2 has been dealt with by the learned Judge in this case, it is apparent that there has been no application of the judicial mind at all. 6. It is true that Tribunals have been constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act with a view to simplify the procedure for grant of compensation to the accident-victims. But the primary objective is to dole out the benefit of this welfare legislation to those who fall prey to reckless and hazardous driving that is a common feature on our roads these days. 7. Appellant had produced Ext.A10 disability certificate in which reference had been made to the various injuries sustained by him. MACA.No.456/06 4 The doctor assessed the disability of the appellant as 23% after examining him and considering the resultant difficulties/discomforts being faced by him. However, the Tribunal did not even advert or refer to the above certificate while considering issue No.2. 8. It can be understood if the Court/Tribunal takes a view either way about the tenability or acceptability of a piece of evidence, be it oral or documentary, after due consideration of the relevant aspects. But the failure of the Tribunal to make even a cursory reference to the crucial document is wholly unjustified. We do not propose to make any further observation on this aspect. In our view, the message should be clear by whatever we have indicated above. 9. In this context, we may refer to Rule 392 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, which reads thus : “ Judgment and award of compensation- (1) The Claims Tribunal in passing orders, shall record concisely in a judgment, the findings on each of the issues framed and the reasons for such findings and make an award specifying the amount of compensation to be paid by the insurer, or the owner in the case of vehicles which are not insured and also the person or MACA.No.456/06 5 persons to whom compensation shall be paid. (2) Where compensation is awarded to two or more persons the Claims Tribunal shall also specify the amount payable to each of them. (3) The Claims Tribunal shall furnish copies of the judgment as required to be recorded under sub-rule (1) to the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, the registering authority and the licensing authority concerned for taking such action as the authorities consider necessary against the drivers, conductors or owners of the vehicle involved in the accident. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2) the record of judgment shall, in respect of claims exceeding five thousand rupees, contain the evidence which shall either be verbatim or a reasonably complete and full memoranda of testimony explaining the basis of compensation, the findings on each such evidence and the reasons for such findings, before making an award specifying the amount of compensation.”( emphasis supplied) 10. The Tribunals must necessarily keep the above statutory provision in view while deciding the claim petitions. There is no gain MACA.No.456/06 6 saying the fact that the above provisions are obligatory. 11. Coming back to the case on hand, it has been noticed already that the Tribunal did not even bother to refer to Ext.A10, Disability Certificate. The claimant was examined in the case as PW1 and the Certificate was admitted in evidence. If in fact the Tribunal was of the view that the Certificate was not worthy of acceptance for any reason, it should have been stated in the award. 12. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 2,000/- while calculating his loss of wages for 11 months. Ext.A3 salary certificate produced by the appellant indicated that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 4306.66. The respondents had not disputed the salary of the appellant. Any now, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the monthly income of the appellant can be reckoned as Rs. 3,000/- for the purpose of fixing compensation under the head of disability. 13. Going by the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant and keeping in view Ext.A10 disability certificate, we are satisfied that his disability can be assessed as 15%. MACA.No.456/06 7 14. At the time of the accident, appellant was aged 58. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that he was due to retire from service shortly, a multiplier of 6 can be taken. Therefore, the compensation payable for disability can be calculated as here under : Rs.3000 x 12 x 6 x 15% = Rs.32,400/- 15. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities. Thus the appellant will be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 42,400/- as additional compensation. The Tribunal has awarded interest only @ 6%. The appellant shall be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum on the total amount of compensation. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the learned Judge of the Tribunal wherever he is. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.456/06 8 MACA.No.456/06 9