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 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 MACA.No. 1349 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.244/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- MYMOONATH. B., AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED, BILANGODAN, MECHERI HOUSE, P.O. MUNDAKKAL, CHERUVAYOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. JALEEL. P., S/O. MAMMED KOYA, PARAMBATH HOUSE, KAKKODI AMSOM, MONIKKARA DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (DRIVER) 2. P.MOHAMMED SADIQUE, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, PUDIYOTIL HOUSE, NELLIKKAPARAMBA P.O.MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (OWNER) 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, VELIMANNA BUILDINGS, P.O. THAMARASSERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1349 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.244/2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated April 16,2005 awarding a compensation of Rs.65,729/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. He sustained the following injuries in that accident: 1. Head injury. 2. Fracture right temporo parietal region. 3. Depressed fracture right parietal bone. 4. Fracture squman temporal bone. 5. Fracture frontal process of maxilla. 6. Fracture greater wing of sphenoid. 7. Temporal Haematoma. 8. Mental depression. 9. Partial loss of eye sight. 2. The accident occurred on October 16,2000 at about 2 p.m.. While the claimant was walking along Kondotty-Areacode public road, he was knocked down by the lorry driven by the second respondent. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the claimant filed MACA.No.1349/2005 2 the O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending lorry remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending lorry filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. Exts.A1 to A12 and Ext.X1 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 lorry by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 65,729/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.1,000/-. 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.1349/2005 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 Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.65,729/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: Transport to hospital - Rs. 1,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 3,400/- Medical expenses - Rs. 7,529/- Pain and suffering - Rs.10,000/- Loss of wages for 1 year - Rs.15,000/- Disability - Rs.28,800/- 8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the disability caused and for pain and suffering endured. He pointed out no compensation was awarded for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1,250/- and took the percentage of disability as 16% and adopted a multiplier of 12 and awarded Rs. 28,800/- for the disability caused. According to the claimant, he was a tailor earning Rs.3,000 per month. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the monthly income of the claimant can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 2,500/-. The percentage of disability as 16% and the multiplier as 12 taken by the MACA.No.1349/2005 4 Tribunal are not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 57,600/- ( 16% x 2500 x 12 x 12). Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.28,800/-. 10. No compensation was seen awarded by the Tribunal for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering endured by the claimant. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-each for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and for pain and suffering endured would be reasonable. 11. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of income for 12 months @ Rs. 1,250/- per month. As we have fixed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 2,500/-, he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income. Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. MACA.No.1349/2005 5 12. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per annum which appears to be very low. The claimant is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. 13. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 63,800/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation 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.1349/2005 6