IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 80 of 2010() --------------------- OPMV.1152/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- JAGANATHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, PUNNIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ELIYODE, IDAKKADAM P.O., EZHUKONE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. MANOJ BOSE, S/O.V.R.J.BOSE, MANIMANDIRAM, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. 2. JAYANDU BOSE, MANIMANDIRAM, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM RESIDING AT THEKKEVILA CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.RAMANAND THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.80 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kollam in OP(MV)No.1152/2003. The claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle driven by his son and it collided with a Maruthi car resulting in injures to him. The Tribunal apportioned the negligence at 80% on the rider of the motor cycle and 20% on the driver of the Maruthi car. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. I had considered the appeal filed by the son, who was the rider of the motor cycle in an appeal filed as MACA 3098/2009. After considering the materials available, I held that the negligence has to be varied and fixed negligence at 60% on the rider of the motor cycle and 40% on the car driver. Therefore the same has to be followed in this case as the claimant was only a pillion rider to the motor cycle. So the negligence is modified as 60% on the rider of the bike and 40% on the driver of the car. 3. The next point is regarding adequacy of the : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.80 OF 2010 compensation. A perusal of the award would reveal that the claimant had soft tissue swelling over the right temperal parietal region and hameorrhagic contusion. Clinical correction was suggested and he was treated as an inpatient in a private hospital for a period of 11 days. He was also asked to review after two weeks. From the nature of the head injury sustained, it can be seen that it requires concentrate attention and real conservative treatment as well. Certainly he would have been prevented from doing any work for two months and therefore, at the rate of Rs.2,500/= I award Rs.5,000/= towards loss of earnings. Rs.1,500/= is already awarded. So the additional compensation under that head would come to Rs.3,500/=. For an injury connected with head involving parietal region and soft tissue swelling, there would have been agonizing mental and physical pain. Therefore, I enhance compensation for pain and sufferings by Rs.5,000/=. Therefore the total compensation the claimant will be entitled to get will be Rs.25,370/=. As per my revised finding on negligence, the claimant will be entitled to 40% of the said amount which : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.80 OF 2010 comes to Rs.10,148/= which I round as Rs.10,150/=. 4. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and a revised award is passed as follows: The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.10,150/= with 7.5% interest on the said some from the date of petition till realisation and the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.80 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.411 OF 1996 ............................................. 3rd day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T