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 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 124 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.938/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- MUFEEDA, AGED 6 YEARS, MINOR, REP.BY GUARDIAN/FATHER, THOTTIYIL SAIDALIKUTTY, PATHIRAMANNA, P.O.PUZHAKKATTIRI. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. P.P.HAMZA, S/O.BAVA, PATAPARAMBATH HOUSE THANALUR P.O., DRIVER-CUM-OWNER. 2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI JJ. ------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A NO. 124 OF 2004 ---------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in OP(MV) No. 938/1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated March 12, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs. 43,000/- 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 a girl aged 6 at the time of accident. On June 23, 1999 while she was walking along the side of Puzhakkattiri– Padapparamba Road she was knocked down by a Pick-van driven by the 1st respondent. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, the accident occurred M.A.C.A NO. 124 OF 2004 2 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Pick-Van by 1st respondent. The first respondent as the owner-cum-driver and the 2nd respondent as the insurer of the offending Pick-Van are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. The 1st Respondent, owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle remained absent and was set ex-parte by the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent, the insurer of the offending Pick -Van filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. Ext. A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the claimant and no evidence was adduced by the contesting 2nd respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle. On an appreciation of evidence, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 43,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the claimant and the counsel for the insurance company. M.A.C.A NO. 124 OF 2004 3 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle 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 claimant sustained compound fracture femur left, Fracture both bones of left leg, Severe lacerated injury over left foot and left ankle, Digloving injury on the left ankle, tendon exposed, Lacerated wound on tongue, as revealed from Ext.A2 wound certificate issued from the hospital. 8. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 43,000/-. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the period of treatment undergone by her, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, she is not entitled to any enhanced compensation from the respondents. That being so, the appeal has M.A.C.A NO. 124 OF 2004 4 to be dismissed. In the result,the appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost. A.K. BASHEER (JUDGE) P.Q.BARKATH ALI (JUDGE) PKK