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 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 MACA.No. 2166 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.2208/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ MOHANAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. SIVARAMAN, PORUTHUKATTIL HOUSE, VATTANTHARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM SMT.O.H.NAZEEBA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. S.SENTHIL KUMAR, S/O. SELVA KUMAR, A.M.ROAD, MOKOKEHUNG, NAGALAND. 2. S.RAMAIAH, S/O. SUBHIA THEYAR, 62-MUTHURAMALINGATHAVAR STREET, IDAIKAL P.O., THENKASI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 74-A, PERAMATHY ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMIL NADU STATE. 4. C.M.MOIDU, CHAKKUNGAL HOUSE, CHIMMINI DAM, KACHIPARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. P.V.BABU, S/O. VASU, POYYARA HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA, VARAKKARA P.O., ALAGAPPA NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BINIS COMPLEX, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR FOR R3 SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R6 SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.2166 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.2208/2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated April 22, 2009 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,77,100/- 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 January 10, 2003 at about 7 a.m. : Multiple ribs fracture, SAH, fracture clavicle and other injuries 2. The accident happened while the claimant was travelling in a Tata sumo bearing Reg.No.KL8/K 4689 driven by the fifth respondent. When he reached at Chirangara junction, the vehicle dashed against a lorry bearing Reg.No.L 02D 3396 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 MACA.NO.2166/09 2 claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,94,500/-. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 are the owner, driver and insurer of the offending lorry. Respondents 4 to 6 are the owner, driver and insurer of the Tata sumo involved in the accident. Respondent No.1 remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondents 2, 4 and 5 though entered appearance before the Tribunal, did not file any written statement. Respondents 3 and 6, the insurers of the vehicles, filed written statements admitting the policy of the respective vehicles. 4. This O.P. was jointly tried along with the other O.Ps filed by the other injured persons in the accident and a common award was passed by the Tribunal. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,77,100/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. MACA.NO.2166/09 3 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 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.3,77,100/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: Loss of earning - Rs. 12,000/- Transportation - Rs. 2,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 4,000/- Damage to clothing - Rs. 500/- Treatment exp. - Rs.1,67,000/- Bystander expenses - Rs. 8,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 20,000/- Loss of amenities - Rs. 10,000/- Disability - Rs.1,53,600/- 8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the disability caused and on other heads. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.2,000/- and took the percentage of disability as 12% and adopted a MACA.NO.2166/09 4 multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs. 48,960/- for the disability caused. According to the claimant, he was doing Aluminium fabrication work earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the monthly income of the claimant can be reasonably fixed at Rs.3,000/-. The percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal as 12% appears reasonable, though the doctor has assessed a disability of 16% in Ext.A13 disability certificate. The multiplier of 17 taken by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 73,440/- ( 12% x 3000 x 12 x 17). Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.24,480/-. 10. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings for 5 months @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. As we have fixed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 3,000/-, he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earnings. Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not MACA.NO.2166/09 5 disturbing the same. 11. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 29,480/-. He 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.