IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 622 of 2004() ------------------------------ OPMV.901/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ SUNNY M.C., MUKALEL HOUSE, POOZHIKOL KARA, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. K.SREEDHARAN S/O. KUNJAPPAN, ARAKKATHAZHATHU HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA KARA, VAIKOM, VADAKKEMURY VILLAGE. 2. SUNNY ABRAHAM, THOTTACHIRAYIL HOUSE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ALWAYE. ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 622 OF 2004 -------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER,2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) No. 901/1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. He sustained the following injuries in a motor accident which occurred on March 26, 1998 at Muttuchira. “Fracture dislocation of left humerous”. 2. The accident happened when the bus bearing registration No. KL5B/9990 driven by the first respondent in which he was travelling overturned. Alleging negligence against the 1st respondent, he filed the O.P before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam u/S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of ` 5,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending bus remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, the Insurer of the offending bus filed a written statement admitting the policy of the offending vehicle but contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, as alleged. Exts. A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claimants. No evidence was M.A.C.A No. 622 OF 2004 2 adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 47,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and a cost of Rs. 1,500/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. The counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation awarded on different heads. 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. 47,500/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under: Loss of earnings : ` 10,500 Treatment expenses : ` 6000 Expenses for bystander : ` 1000 Pain and suffering : ` 10000 M.A.C.A No. 622 OF 2004 3 Loss of amenities : ` 20,000 -------------- Total : ` 47,500 ======= 8. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment the claimant has undergone and the fact that the claimant is still working as Selection Grade Assistant in M.G. University, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. That being so the claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. 9. In view of our above findings, we find no merit in the appeal and the same has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No cost. A.K. BASHEER Judge P.Q. BARKATH ALI Judge PKK