IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1240 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.3717/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/ CLAIMANT ----------------------- M.B.VIJAYAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.M.M.BATHU, MAROTTICKAL HOUSE, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O., COCHIN-19. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 --------------- 1. C.G.SURESH, S/O.GOPALAN, PLOT NO.31, KUDUMBI COLONY, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-20. 2. C.G.RAMESH, S/O.GOPALAN, PLOT NO. 31, KUDUMBI COLONY, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-20. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-35. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1240 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.3717/1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 24, 2005 awarding a compensation of Rs.34,750/- 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 that occurred on June 22, 1997 at about 5.30 p.m. : “8 cm. long transverse lacerated wound over ( R) medial malleolus. Evidence of dislocation ( R) foot. Admitted in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery- reduction of dislocation done under G.A.” 2. The accident happened while the claimant was travelling in the autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-7/8415 along Thondilangadi- Mampuzha road. Due to the negligence of the driver of the MACA.No.1240/2005 2 autorickshaw, the second respondent, the autorickshaw 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. 1,50,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending autorickshaw remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending autorickshaw filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. PW1 was examined and 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 autorickshaw by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 34,750/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. 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 MACA.No.1240/2005 3 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 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 break up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under : Transport to hospital - Rs. 500/- Damage to clothing - Rs. 250/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 500/- Attendant expenses - Rs. 500/- Treatment expenses - Rs.10,000/- Loss of earning - Rs. 3,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs.12,000/- Loss of amenities - Rs. 8,000/- 8. Counsel for the claimant argued that no compensation was awarded by the Tribunal for the disability caused and claimed enhancement of compensation for loss of amenities and pain and suffering endured by the claimant. 9. It is true that the Tribunal did not award any amount for the disability caused to the claimant. The claimant did not produce any MACA.No.1240/2005 4 document to show that he has suffered any disability due to the injury sustained. But the nature of the injury sustained by him shows that he must have suffered some disability for which we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable. 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 11. Rs.12,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal for the pain and suffering endured by the claimant. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- would be reasonable for the pain and suffering endured by the claimant. 12. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,000/- for loss of earnings for two months @ Rs.1500/- per month. The claimant is a screen printer as testified by him as PW1. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore, towards loss of earnings, he is entitled to a compensation of MACA.No.1240/2005 5 Rs. 4,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. 13. In the result, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 16,000/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% 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.1240/2005 6 MACA.No.1240/2005 7