IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 MACA.No. 156 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.1647/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT: --------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. B.GOPAKUMAR, GEETHALAYAM, NEDIYARA, KIZHEKKEMURI, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. YESUDAS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, VETTUKATTU VEEDU, OORAMBU JUNCTION, CHOZHIYUR VILLAGE, VILAVAMKODU TALUK, KANYKUMARI DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & K. HEMA, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.156 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J: An young man, aged 29 years, met with an accident by which he suffered serious injuries. He claimed a compensation of Rs.7,36,000/-. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the bus by the first respondent and the bus was owned by the 2nd respondent ( appellant in this appeal). The Tribunal only granted Rs.2,45,255/- with 7.5% interest. The major grounds in the appeal are that the amount warded was very high and finding of negligence was not justified. The driver of the appellant-Corporation was charge sheeted by Ext.A5 charge sheet. Exts.A1 FIR and A2 scene mahazar clearly show that the driver was negligent. The driver was not examined to disprove the allegations. There is no material to hold that the claimant, who was standing at the road margin, was responsible for the accident. Therefore the [MACA.156/08] 2 finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus owned by the appellant is fully justified. 2. As a result of the accident, claimant suffered serious injuries. Ext.A6 wound certificate shows the following injuries: “Ext.A6 wound certificate would show lacerated injury 10 cm on the medial aspect left foot alone. The Medical Officer of the District Hospital, Kollam, issued this. Later on, the injured was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, where he was admitted on 13.12.1998 and discharged on 25,9,1999. Ext,a7 discharge card would show that the injured sustained dislocation of L3 & L4; Calcanium and Navicular dislocation. Ext.A11 report on C.T.Scan issued by the department of Radio Diagnosis at the Medical College Hospital would show the following important points:- 1)Dislocation of L3 or L4 Superior artucular process projecting of L4 projecting into spinal canal of L3 2) Fracture transverse processes (both) L4 & L3, Sopinous process of L3. 3) Contusion & psoas quadratus lumborum 4) Localised ascetis The disability certificate issued by the department of Orthopedics Directorate of Medical Education would show the following findings: 1) Residual canda equina lesion with bilateral foot drop and weakness of both quadriceps. 2) Malunited fracture dislocation of L3 over L4 vertibra with anterior wedging and residual hyphosis 3) Persistent muscle spasin and pain in the lumbar region with painful restriction of flexion, extension and rotation. 4) Varying degrees of sensory deficit of both legs and feet. 5) Insensate skin over sacrum. 6) Malunited fracture fibula with excess callus and [MACA.156/08] 3 persistent tenderness. 7) Malnunited fracture (L) Calcaneum with subtalar and calcaneonavicular arthritis and restriction of inversion and inversion of (L) foot. 8) Malunited fracture of 3rd and 4th ribs of (L) side with persistent pain. 9) Reflex sympathetic dystrophic changes of both feet. 10) Persistent urinary incontinence.” 3. The doctor certified temporary disability of 100% for one year and temporary disability of 60% for next six months and permanent residual disability of 34%. The claimant was 29 years old at the time of accident. Even though he claimed that his monthly income was Rs.4000/-, Tribunal has taken only Rs.1500/- and calculated compensation on the basis of 34% disability. We are of the view that Rs.1500/- fixed by the Tribunal as monthly income is very low. But, the claimant did not file an appeal. The compensation awarded on the basis of 34% disability on the basis of the medical certificate cannot be questioned in any event by the owner of the vehicle even if claimant has a contention that he lost 100% earning capacity due to injuries suffered in the accident. Considering the pitiable conditions and enduring pain suffered by the claimant, Rs.25,000/- granted for pain and suffering also cannot be said to be excessive. Considering the injuries suffered, medical treatment undergone by him etc. we [MACA.156/08] 4 are of the opinion that the amount awarded is just and reasonable and no interference is required at the instance of the owner of the offending vehicle. Appeal is dismissed. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.