IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 1258 of 2006(B) ---------------------------------- OPMV NO.598/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE ............................ .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- P. ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. MAYIN KUTYY, PALAYIL HOUSE, FEROOKE COLLEGE POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. V. ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, S/O. AVARAN,VECHANGADU HUSE, FEROKE PETTA, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER R2 BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.SRI.JACOB MATHEW. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KRK A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 1258 of 2006 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.598 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal), Kozhikode. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated November 14, 2005 awarding a compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The claimant sustained fracture of maxilla, injuries on lower lip and upper lip, displacing of nasal bone, mobility of four teeth and fracture of four teeth. The accident happened on December 21, 1997 at about 5.30 p.m. While the claimant was walking from Petta to Paruthippara, he was knocked down by an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-11-F-9785. Alleging negligence against the 1st MACA 1258/2006 2 respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the auto-rickshaw, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 are the owner-cum-driver and insurer of the auto-rickshaw. The 1st respondent remained absent before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy. Exts.A1 to A 5 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the 1st respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimant has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the MACA 1258/2006 3 Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent is not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question, which arises for consideration, is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Pain and suffering : Rs. 25,000 including loss of 8 teeths. Hospitalization charges, : Rs. 6,000 bystander's expenses and medical expenses. Incidental expenses including : Rs. 1,500 transportation charges and expenses for extra nourishment. Damage to clothing : Rs. 250 Loss of earning : Rs. 3,600 Loss of amenities and : Rs. 3,500 enjoyment in life. ------------------ Total : Rs.39,850 Rounded to : Rs.40,000 ======= 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the loss of MACA 1258/2006 4 amenities and enjoyment in life and on other heads. The learned counsel also submits that no compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal for the disability caused. 8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,500/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Taking into consideration the fact that 8 teeth of the claimant have been extracted, we feel that a compensation of Rs.25,000/- would be reasonable for the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. The Tribunal is perfectly justified in not awarding any compensation for the alleged disability caused, as no document was produced by the claimant to show that he has suffered any disability on account of the injuries sustained by him. 9. 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 realization for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. As regards the compensation awarded under MACA 1258/2006 5 other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. 10. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.21,500/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till realization for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. The 2nd respondent shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimant. 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. mn