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 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 MACA.No. 677 of 2010() ---------------------- OPMV.205/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER -------------- MALAYAMBARA NARAYANAN,AGED 56, S/O.KUNHAMBU,RUBBER TAPPING WORKER, RESIDING AT MANLYAMBARA HOUSE, PULIYOOL,THIRUVETTOR P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.3 --------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, P.B.NO.20,PAYYANNUR,KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 677 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: MAY 17, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimant in OP(MV) 205/2003 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated August 1, 2009 awarding a compensation of Rs.30,900/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: The claimant was aged 50 at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.3600/- per month as salary from his employment as a rubber tapper, according to the claimant. On November 7, 2002, at about 10.15 a.m. the claimant was travelling in a jeep and when reached at Kuppam, a bus bearing registration No. KRC 9759 came from the back and dashed against the jeep. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver, the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent as the owner, the 2nd respondent as the driver and the 3rd respondent as the insurer of the offending bus are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. M.A.C.A. 677 of 2010 2 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver respectively of the offending bus, remained absent and were set ex parte by the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the offending bus, filed a written statement admitting the policy and further contended that there was also negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. 4. PW.1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent before the Tribunal. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.30,900/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, the 2nd 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. 6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.30,900/-. The break up of the compensation amount is as under:- bystander's expense 1,200/- M.A.C.A. 677 of 2010 3 pain and suffering 14,000/- Medical expenses 12,000/- Extra nourishment 1,000/- transport to hospital 200/- Loss of earning 2,500/- --------------- Total 30,900/- =========== 7. The claimant sustained fracture on the left patella and swelling on the left forearm as seen from Ext.A2, copy of the wound certificate issued from the hospital. Ext.A3 is the discharge card issued from the hospital. He was admitted in the hospital on November 7, 2002 and was discharged on November 19, 2002. 8. Counsel for the claimant argued that the Tribunal did not grant any compensation for the disability caused as the claimant has suffered some disability due to the injuries sustained. We find no substance in the above contention. No certificate of disability is produced by the claimant to show that he has suffered any disability due to the injuries sustained. Further, taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained and the period of treatment, the claimant has undergone, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. That being so, the claimant is not M.A.C.A. 677 of 2010 4 entitled to any enhanced compensation. Consequently the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The parties shall suffer their own costs. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-