IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 279 of 2005() ------------------------------ OPMV.2650/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT --------------------------------------------------------- RAJEEV KUMAR SINGH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. A.B.SINGH, INAS 550, INS GARUDA, NAVAL BASE, COCHIN -4, NOW RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO.Z/GA, SRIVIJAYANAGAR COLONY 104 AREA, MARRIEPALAYAM, VISHAKHAPATTANAM 530 009. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SRI.MANJU SUDHISH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT.SHIRLY LOUIZ, W/O. LATE LOUIZ, VALLANATTU HOUSE, PANAYAPPILLY, COCHI -2. 2. JOY, S/O. VARGHESE, THOTTAPPILLY HOUSE, PULIYANAM P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-16. ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR FOR R3 SMT.P.A.REZIYA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. NO. 279 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT -------------- Barkath Ali, J. The appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) No. 2650/96 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. He sustained head injury with concussion and CLW Scalp occipital region, in a motor accident that occurred on January 3, 1996 at about 8.30 p.m. near Naval Base, Ernakulam. The accident happened while he was cycling along the southern side of the Mattanchery – Ernakulam road, he was knocked down by a bus bearing registration No. KL-7C 3793. Alleging negligence against the driver of the bus, the 2nd respondent, the claimant filed O.P before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of ` 2 lakhs. 2. The first respondent, the owner of the offending bus has admitted the accident but denied the liability. The 2nd respondent, the driver of the offending bus remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, the insurer of the offending bus filed a written statement admitting the M.A.C.A. NO. 279 OF 2005 2 policy. 3. The claimant was examined as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and Exts. A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, the driver of the offending bus and awarded a compensation of ` 17,250/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate cost. The Claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, the driver of the offending bus is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only M.A.C.A. NO. 279 OF 2005 3 question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation? 6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ` 17,250/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under: Transportation charges to hospital :` 500 Damage to clothings :` 250 Extra nourishment :`1000 Attendant expenses :` 500 Treatment expense :`1000 loss of love and affection :`2000 Pain and suffering :`8000 loss of amenities & enjoyment in life :` 4000 ---------- Total :` 17250 ==== 7. The counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for the pain and suffering endured, for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and for loss of earnings. 8. The claimant was working as a petty office Air Fitter in I.N.S Garuda, Naval Base, Cochin. He was aged 29 at the time of accident. Ext.A10, discharge summary card M.A.C.A. NO. 279 OF 2005 4 issued from Medical Trust Hospital,Ernakulam shows that the claimant has sustained only concussion. But it is seen from Ext.A8(b), the copy of the Medical Board proceedings of the INHS, Sanjivani that the C.T scan done revealed D mild diastatis of the sagital suture in the occipital region and the multiple haemorrhagic contusion injuries and mild oedema left frontal lobe without significant mass effect. As a result of the injuries sustained he was put in the Low Medical Category. 9. For pain and suffering the Tribunal awarded a compensation of ` 8000/- which appears to be very low. Taking into account the nature of the injuries sustained, we feel that a compensation of ` 15000/- would be reasonable on this count. 10. For loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, a compensation of ` 4000/- was awarded. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, we feel that a compensation of `10,000/- would be reasonable on this count. M.A.C.A. NO. 279 OF 2005 5 11. No compensation was seen awarded by the Tribunal for loss of earnings. Ext.A12, salary certificate shows that the claimant was earning ` 3579/- per month. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that the claimant must have been disabled for three months for which he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,737/- ie. for three months @ ` 3579/- per month. 12. As regards compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. 13. The counsel for the claimant argued that no compensation was awarded for the alleged disability caused to the claimant as he was placed under low medical category due to the injuries sustained by him. We find no substance in the above contention. While placing the claimant on the low medical category, the claimant has not suffered any monitory loss. Even his promotion to the M.A.C.A. NO. 279 OF 2005 6 higher category of job is also not affected. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in not awarding the compensation for the alleged disability caused. 14. Thus, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of ` 23,737/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate cost. The 3rd 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 pkk