IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 1864 of 2009(C) ---------------------------- OPMV.2563/2000 of PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------- T.BABU RAJAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. DAMODHARAN, THALASSERY HOUSE, ERANHIPALAM, PALATTUTHAZHAM VAYAL, CIVIL STATION POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. SATHEESAN A.P. S/O. ACHUTHAN NAIR, SOPANAM, 36/644A, VENGAERI POST, KOZHIKODE. 2. RAMESH BABU, S/O. BHASKARAN, KUZHUMBATTIL VEEDU, IDIKKADAN PALLI, CHEVAYUR AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1864 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)2563/00. The Tribunal in its usual style finds negligence at 50% and reduces only by 10% and awarded a compensation of Rs.23,783/-. Date of accident is not shown correctly by the Tribunal. Really the accident had taken place on 12.5.00 but it is shown as in 12.5.02. I am stating so not to find fault with the Tribunal but to analyze the documents in the case. 2. Let me first consider about the negligence. The claimant was riding in a scooter which was proceeding from east to vest. The car was coming from west to east. The road at the place of accident is having a width of 8 mtrs. The accident had taken place 1½ mtrs. north of the southern tarred end. Therefore the correct side was maintained by the scooterist and the car had transgressed into the wrong side as per the scene mahazar. But being a small vehicle and M.A.C.A. 1864 OF 2009 -:2:- considering the fact that there was a very wide road margin an attempt should have been made by the scooterist to save. Therefore I confine the percentage of negligence at 10% in this case. 3. Now turning to the quantum. A perusal of the document made available before me would reveal that the claimant was admitted in the Medical College Hospital and he had sustained a comminuted sub-trochanter fracture of the right femur. Initially he was treated as an inpatient from 13.5.2000 to 3.6.2000. A surgery was conducted by introducing an implantation on 26.5.2000. Again he was admitted in the hospital on 31.10.2001 and discharged on 3.11.2001. It was a case of abseses. Again he was admitted on 19.2.2002 and discharged on 6.3.2002 with a surgery conducted on 21.2.2002. So the man had undergone 39 days inpatient treatment on three different occasions and had almost undergone treatment for two years in the hospital. Therefore I feel the following enhancement has to be given to him. Towards incidental expenses I enhance it M.A.C.A. 1864 OF 2009 -:3:- by Rs.2,000/-. Towards pain and sufferings I enhance it by Rs.5,000/-. Towards loss of amenities I grant Rs.3,000/- more. As he is prevented from doing any job at least for one full year I grant loss of earnings additionally as Rs.13,500/- thus making it Rs.23,500/-, of this 10% has to be deducted for his negligence, i.e. Rs.2,350/- which makes him entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.21,150/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.21,150/- with 7.5% interest on the said sum from 13.12.2000 till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-