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 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 MACA.No. 1932 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.782/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- SYAM PRASAD P., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. LATE SETHUMADHAVAN, PUTHENVEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. LOHITHAKSHAN. A., S/O. AYYAPPANKURUP AGE NOT KNOWN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKARA, AZHIYANNUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. ( DELETED) 2. SURESH, S/O. KALYANKUTTY, AGED 25 YEARS, THAMARAKULAM, JAINIMEDU, PALAKKAD. ( DELETED) 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SURYA COMPLEX, T.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 8/10/2007 ON I.A.NO.2202/2007 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1932 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.782/2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated December 6,2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,75,500/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. He sustained the following injuries in that accident : 1. Deep lacerated wound over ( L) forehead 2. Laceration 1 cm. just above the bond deep wound. 3. Lacerated wound 5 cm. over the scalp ( L) painful region. 4. Haematoma both eyelids. 5. Depressed frontal bone fracture with cerebral contusion and pneumocephalus, Lefort II fracture maxilla, post-traumatic CSF rhinorrhea with meningitis, optic pathyway injury. 6. He had mobile midface, CT Scan showed fracture orbital roof, frontal base, frontal sinus, left frontal extradural haemotoma, pneumocephalus and subarachnoid haemorrhage. 7. Fracture lower end radius. MACA.No.1932/2005 2 2. The accident occurred on March 18,2002 at about 1.30 p.m. While the claimant was pillion riding on a bike bearing Reg.No.KL 8/S 3198 ridden by the second respondent from Coimbatore to Palakkad and when he reached at Kalmandapam, the bike dashed against the divider on the road and capsized. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,75,500/-. 3. Respondent No. 1, the owner of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the accident, but denied the liability. The second respondent, the rider of the offending vehicle remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A20 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motor MACA.No.1932/2005 3 bike by first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,75,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.3,500/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent 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 Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,75,500/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: Pain and suffering - Rs. 25,000/- Loss of income - Rs. 15,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 3,000/- Disability - Rs.2,16,000/- Loss of amenities - Rs. 15,000/- Future medical expenses - Rs. 10,000/- Medical bill - Rs. 82,000/- Bystander expenses - Rs. 6,500/- MACA.No.1932/2005 4 8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the disability caused, for pain and suffering endured and for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.2,500/- and took the percentage of disability as 45% and adopted a multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs.2,16,000/- for the disability caused. According to the claimant, he was working as a Supervisor in M/s.Value Ventures earning Rs.7,500/- per month. PW2 is the partner in that firm. He proved Ext.A14 the certificate issued by him. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the monthly income of the claimant can be reasonably fixed at Rs.4,000/-. 10. The percentage of disability as 45% and the multiplier as 16 taken by the Tribunal are not seriously challenged. Further, in the light of the disability certificates Exts.A12 and A13 the percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal appears reasonable. Ext.A12 is the certificate of disability issued by the Neuro Surgeon attached to Aswini Hospital, Trichur showing the percentage of disability as 70%. Ext.A13 is the certificate of disability issued by the Ophthalmologist MACA.No.1932/2005 5 showing a disability of 30% as the claimant has lost vision of one eye. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,45,600/- ( 45% x 4000 x 12 x 16). Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,29,600/-. 11. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering endured by the claimant and Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for pain and suffering endured and Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life would be reasonable. 12. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of income for 6 months @ Rs. 2,500/- per month. As we have fixed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 4,000/-, he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 24,000/- towards loss of income. Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 9,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and MACA.No.1932/2005 6 therefore we are not disturbing the same. 13. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per annum which appears to be very low. The claimant is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. 14. In the result, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,53,600/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation and proportionate cost. The third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The Appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.1932/2005 7 MACA.No.1932/2005 8