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 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 MACA.No. 192 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.1402/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- ANIL KUMAR M.K., S/O. UNNI @ KUNJIKUTTAN, MATTALUKKAL HOUSE, ERAVATHOOR, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, TRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. P.N. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. NEELAKANDAN, PANDAVATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, MEKKAD, ANGAMALY. 2. M.V. AVARACHAN, S/O. VARKEY, MOOZHAVEEDU HOUSE, ANGAMALY. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ALWAYE BRANCH, PATTAMANA BUILDING, R.S. ROAD, ALWAYE. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.192 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant sustained the following injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on May 11, 2001 : Open fracture ( R) tibia and fibula middle 3rd with butterfly fragment. He was treated with interlocking nailing and flap coverage. 2. Alleging negligence on the part of respondent No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle, the appellant claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the said vehicle. He produced Exts.A1 to A11 and examined the Orthopaedician, who issued Ext.A8 disability certificate as PW1 . 3. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record awarded a sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- with 7% interest. The appellant impugns the said award contending that the Tribunal has not kept in view the serious nature of the injuries sustained by him and that the award amount is totally inadequate and meagre. MACA.No.192/2006 2 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the third respondent/Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record, particularly Ext.A6 discharge summary and Ext.A8 disability certificate. 5. PW1 who issued Ext.A8 certificate had assessed the disability of the appellant as 6% which has been accepted by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has taken only Rs. 1,500/- as the monthly income of the appellant. It is true that the appellant was only 19 years at the time of the accident. But according to him, he had been earning Rs. 4,500/- every month working as a Mechanic. However, the appellant did not produce any document to show his employment. But, keeping in view that he was a young and able bodied man and that the injury has caused him some disability, we are of the view that his notional monthly income can be taken as Rs.2,500/-. The compensation payable to the appellant under the head of disability can be recalculated thus : 2500 x 12 x 16 x 6% = Rs.28,800/- 6. Similarly, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 5,000/- under MACA.No.192/2006 3 the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, which is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. Under the head of pain and suffering, the appellant has been awarded only Rs. 15,000/-. It is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. Loss of earnings for three months is recalculated as Rs. 7,500/- ( 2500 x 3). In all other respects, the award passed by the Tribunal is sustained. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.192/2006 4