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 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 1682 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.1180/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: --------------------------------- C.I. VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. IPE, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, P.O. THRIPPANACHI, PULPATTA VILLAGE, MUTHANOOR, EMAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. ABBASALY POTTENGAL, S/O. ALAVIKKUTTY. P., P.O. KADANNAMANNA, PEINTHALMANNA (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (DRIVER). 2. MOHAMMEDALI, S/O. AHAMMED, PALLATH HOUSE, P.O. KADANNAMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA (VIA.), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (OWNER). 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, JASEELA COMPLEX, P.B.NO.3, MANJERI. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1682 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JUNE 24, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The appellant suffered several injuries in a motor accident that occurred on May 12, 2000 while he was riding on his two wheeler. A jeep driven by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3 knocked down the appellant resulting in the following injuries:- “1. Head injury - concussion. 2. Fracture both bones left forearm. 3. Multiple fracture ribs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 left side. 4. Lacerated wound forehead 1 cm. 5. Lacerated wound scalp. 6. Small tear (L) Diaphram. 7. Other injuries including abrasion and contusion on all over body.” 2. Appellant claimed a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation under various heads. He got himself examined before the Tribunal as PW.1 and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on his side. Ext.X1 report of the Medical Board was also marked in the case. 3. The Tribunal, we are constrained to observe, in a totally unsatisfactory and slipshod manner dealt with the claim made by the appellant and passed an award for a sum of Rs.59,920/-. Curiously, M.A.C.A. 1682 of 2005 2 the Tribunal did not even bother to refer to the report of the Medical Board (Ext.X1) comprised of three doctors. The Board had assessed the disability of the appellant as 7% after noticing the injuries suffered by him and also the difficulties and infirmities that were noticed at the time of examination. The conclusions/findings recorded by the Medical Board in Ext.X1 are extracted hereunder:- “Now on examination there is terminal limitation of rotation of (L) shoulder joint. Elbow joint ROM flexion and extension full. There is wasting of (L) forearm. (L) wrist joint movement there is terminal limitation of palmar flexion and dorsiflexion. Grip is weak. Hence a partial permanent disability of 7% (seven).” 4. We have referred to the above aspect only to highlight the fact that some of the Tribunals do not seem to be concerned at all about the human element involved in such cases. The Tribunals must necessarily make an endeavour to find out whether the claim is genuine or not. It must also be ensured by the Tribunals that victim of an accident is not denied adequate compensation because of the apathy or indifferent attitude of the adjudicating authority. No doubt, bogus claims should be sternly dealt with; but a genuine case must not suffer. M.A.C.A. 1682 of 2005 3 5. In the case on hand, the Tribunal without even bothering to quantify the amount of compensation payable under the head 'disability' by referring to the monthly income of the appellant or the percentage of disability assessed by the Medical Board, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- which the Tribunal described as hereunder: “compensation for discomfort (instead of disability)”. The line of thinking of the Tribunal in coining the above phraseology is hard to understand. The Tribunal ought to have noted that at the time of the accident, the appellant was aged 50 and he was working as Headmaster of a Lower Primary School. He had produced Ext.A12 certificate showing that he was drawing a basic salary of Rs.7550/-. In the claim petition the appellant had shown his monthly income as Rs.9802/-. In spite of all these, the Tribunal took a casual note of the above aspect stating that there is “no document to prove his notional income. Now he has retired from the school”. The above approach made by the Tribunal, to say the least, is totally unfortunate. 6. Having perused the impugned award, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant is entitled to get adequate compensation under the head 'disability' and also towards 'loss of earnings'. Keeping in view all the attendant circumstances, we fix the monthly income of the appellant notionally for the purpose of computing the M.A.C.A. 1682 of 2005 4 compensation for disability under the two heads mentioned above as Rs.6000/- and adopting a multiplier of 6, the compensation payable under the head of disability would come to Rs.30,240/- (6000 x 12 x 6 x 7%) in lieu of the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of discomfort. Towards partial loss of earnings from the date of accident, the appellant will be entitled to get Rs.20,000/-. The appellant shall also be entitled to get Rs.10,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities'. Thus he will be entitled to get an additional sum of Rs.50,240/-. He shall be paid interest at the rate of 7.5% for the entire amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realisation. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-