IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 2141 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.2675/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- JAMES ABRAHAM, URAVUMKARA HOUSE, ARNOOTTIMANGALAM P.O., MULLAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SREEDHARAN, ARAKKATHAZHATHU HOUSE, PADINJAREKARA, VADAKKEMURY VILLAGE, VAIKOM. 2. SUNNY ABRAHAM, THOTTICHIRAYIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA, VAIKOM. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ALUVA. ADV. SRI.P.M.M..NAJEEB KHAN FOR R.3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.2141 of 2006 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Thomas P.Joseph, J. Appellant claimed compensation to the tune of Rupees Two lakhs alleging that on 26.3.1998 while he was travelling in the bus driven by the first respondent, it lost control due to the rashness and negligence of the first respondent, capsized and that resulted in serious injuries to him. Tribunal found that the accident occurred as alleged by the appellant and awarded compensation of Rs.27,886/- to be realised from the respondents with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation. 2. Heard counsel for the appellant and contesting respondent. 3. Point for consideration is whether appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation. 4. The Point. Ext.A13 is the copy of wound certificate and Ext.A9, copy of the discharge card issued from the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Evidence produced by the appellant revealed that he suffered lacerated wound 10x5 cm. on the MACA No.2141/2006 2 posterior aspect of elbow exposing the bone. There was triceps avulsion right side which was treated by repairs and AE slab on the elbow. It is contended by the learned counsel for appellant that the compensation awarded to the appellant is meagre. 5. Appellant, at the time of accident was working on contract basis with Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam as field officer. According to him, he was earning at the rate of Rs.3,800/- per month and produced Ext.A16, certificate issued by the Executive Director of Gramaswaraj Extension Project, School of Gandhian Thought and Development Studies, Mahatma Gandhi University. Tribunal accepted Ext.A16 and found the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.3,800/-. There is no scope for interference with that finding. 6. Ext.A10 is the disability certificate produced by the appellant to show that injury suffered by him has resulted in disability and consequent loss of earning power. In Ext.A10, permanent disability recommended is 8%. Tribunal was not inclined to accept Ext.A10 for the reason that the Medical Officer who issued Ext.A10 was not examined and that the injury suffered by the appellant will not cause any permanent disability as claimed by the appellant. Tribunal however, was of the view that the injury may affect the enjoyment of amenities of life and hence awarded Rs.10,000/-. According to the appellant, he is entitled to get compensation for disability and loss of earning power as well. It is also contended that compensation awarded for pain and suffering is meagre. MACA No.2141/2006 3 7. We have stated the injuries suffered by the appellant. Though, it was only a lacerated wound, it is seen from Ext.A13 that it was extensive in nature and deep enough to expose the bone. There was triceps avulsion which was treated with repairs and AE slab on the elbow. Appellant had to be inpatient in the hospital for some time, followed by outpatient treatment. Apparently, appellant had to undergo severe pain and suffering. Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment, we are inclined to award a further sum of Rs.5,000/- on the head of pain and suffering. 8. So far as disability is concerned, though Ext.A10 as such was not accepted, Tribunal noticed the possible difficulties that could arise from the injuries suffered by the appellant. Exts.A18 to A21 show that appellant has secured Master Degree, Ph. D. and Doctorate Degree in various subjects. At the relevant time, he was working as filed officer on contract basis. Work of field officer required the appellant going to the field and engaging himself in field work, rather than engaging in office work for the full time. Injury involved the muscles of the elbow and it even exposed the bone. There is the possibility of appellant having stiffness of the muscles on account of the injuries suffered. That will affect his capacity to work as filed officer. Taking these aspects into account, we are inclined to award Rs.10,000/- as compensation for discomfort and inconvenience arising from the injury suffered. MACA No.2141/2006 4 9. Though counsel requested us to interfere with the compensation awarded on other counts as well, on giving an anxious consideration of that request and considering the amount awarded on those counts and also considering all other relevant factors, we are not persuaded to accept that request as we are satisfied that compensation awarded on those counts are just and fair. Thus the additional compensation payable to the appellant is Rs.15,000/-. Appellant will get interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. Over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellant is allowed to realize a further sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application till realization from respondents 1 to 3, jointly and severally. Third respondent being the insurer of the vehicle is directed to deposit the said amount in the Tribunal. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks