IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 MACA.No. 100 of 2011() ---------------------- OPMV.1157/2009 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT -------------- BUSHARA, W/O. ABDULASEES P.P., AGED 20 YEARS, PUDIYOTTUMPARAMBATH, PARAKOTTUTHAZHAM, PERUMANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ABDUMANAF, S/O. YAKOOB, IRANHITHODI HOUSE, KURUVA, MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (R.C. OWNER OF CAR KL-53/9200), PIN-676 507. 2. HANEESBABU, S/O. ALI, AGED 29 YEARS, PARI HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 331. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MALAPPURAM-676 505. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.100 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1157/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. In this appeal, she challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated March 12, 2010 awarding a compensation of Rs.25,938/- for the loss caused to her on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident. She sustained the following injuries in that accident that occurred on October 20, 2008 at about 5.40 p.m. : Multiple laceration over face, fracture L4, L5 transverse process, fracture posterior and interior pubic ramus, abruptia placenta, coagulation failure, Retro placental haematoma, blunt trauma abdomen and pain all over body. 2. The accident happened while the claimant was pillion riding on the motor cycle being Reg.No.KL 57-1239 from Ramanattukara to Kuttikattoor. When she reached at Viripadu, she was MACA.No.100/2011 2 knocked down by the car bearirng Reg.No.KL 53-9200 driven by the second respondent. 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. 2,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending car filed written statements admitting the accident, but denied the liability. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending car filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. Exts.A1 to A6 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 driving of the offending car by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,938/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.450/-. 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. MACA.No.100/2011 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 second 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.25,938/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: Transport to hospital - Rs. 300/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 200/- Loss of earnings - Rs.2,500/- Bystander expenses - Rs.1,650/- Treatment expenses - Rs.8,288/- Pain and suffering - Rs.12,000/- Loss of amenities - Rs. 1,000/- 8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and for pain and suffering endured by the claimant. He pointed out that no compensation was awarded for the disability caused. He argued that the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for assessing the compensation afresh. 9. We have called for the lower court records and perused the MACA.No.100/2011 4 same. We feel that the matter need not be remanded to the lower court and can be decided here itself. 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and Rs.12,000/- for pain and suffering endured by the claimant. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering endured by the claimant would be reasonable. 11. No compensation was awarded by the Tribunal for the disability caused to the claimant. The claimant did not produce any certificate of disability. But taking into consideration the serious nature of the injury sustained by her, we feel that she must have suffered some disability for which we feel that a compensation of Rs.15,000/- would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. In awarding enhancement of the compensation, we have also taken note of the fact that claimant has filed O.P.(MV)No.941/2009 before the Tribunal claiming MACA.No.100/2011 5 compensation for the loss of 8 month foetus in which an award has been passed for Rs.51,000/-. 12. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 27000/-. She is entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation 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.100/2011 6