IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 277 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.619/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- RANEESHA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. HABEEB, MANAKKADAVATH HOUSE, SHORANUR-2, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. ABBAS S/O. KUNHALI, AGED NOT KNOWN KATTODI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. 2. SHOWKKATHALI, S/O. MOIDEEN, AGE NOT KNOWN PILATHARACKAL HOUSE, PERURKURISSI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.277 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.6/1995 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam, a girl aged 12 through her guardian father challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs. 180,950/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in a motor accident. 2. The facts in brief are these : On February 4, 1999 at about 10.00 a.m., while the claimant, a girl aged 12, was standing in front of her house on the side of Shornur- Kulappully road at Kulappully, she was knocked down by a trucker lorry bearing Reg.No. KRP 6660 driven by the second respondent. She fell down and front left wheel of the trucker lorry ran over her left ankle causing a crush injury to her. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending trucker lorry by the second respondent, the driver. First respondent as MACA.No.277/05 Page numbers the owner, second respondent as the driver and third respondent as the Insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending lorry remained absent and were set ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 filed a written statement admitting the policy. Father of the injured girl was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,80,950/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by the second respondent is also not challenged in this MACA.No.277/05 Page numbers appeal. Therefore, the only question arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ? 7. The claimant is a girl aged 12. She sustained crush injury on the left ankle and left foot. Ext.A4 copy of the wound certificate shows that her bones were badly crushed and contaminated and amputation was done. Ext.A5 is the discharge summary. She was in the hospital from 4-2-95 to 25-03-95. Ext.A6 treatment cum disability certificate shows that she has a permanent disability of 50%. The Tribunal awarded the compensation as follows : Medical Bills -Rs. 18,700/- Expenses during hospitalisation -Rs. 5,100/- Transport expenses -Rs. 1,250/- Miscellaneous Expenses -Rs. 400/- Extra nourishment -Rs. 2,500/- Pain and suffering -Rs. 25,000/- Injury compensation -Rs. 20,000/- Disability -Rs. 75,000/- Loss of amenities -Rs. 10,000/- Harm caused to Marriage prospects -Rs. 15,000/- Disfigurement -Rs. 5,000/- School study interruption -Rs. 3,000/- ----------------- Rs.1,80,950/- ========== 8. Learned counsel has only disputed the compensation MACA.No.277/05 Page numbers awarded for the disability caused. The Tribunal took the notional income of the claimant as Rs. 750/- and adopting a multiplier of 15, awarded a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for the disability caused. We feel that the notional income taken by the Tribunal is very low. Even as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the notional income to be taken is Rs. 1500/- per month. Therefore, we feel that the notional income of the injured girl can be taken as Rs. 1,250/- per month. The claimant suffered a disability of 50% as revealed from Ext.A6, the certificate of disability issued by the doctor, which is not seriously challenged. The multiplier adopted is 15 which is not seriously disputed. Adopting the said multiplier, the claimant will be entitled to Rs. 1,12,500/- ( 50% x 1250 x 12 x 15) as compensation for the disability caused. Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 37,500/-. Regarding the other aspects, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable. In the result, the appellant/claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 37500/-. She is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and costs. MACA.No.277/05 Page numbers The third respondent being the Insurance company shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the appellant/claimant. The award of the Tribunal is modified as found above. The Appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.277/05 Page numbers