IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1730 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.1688/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/PETITIONER; ----------------------------------- J. JAYACHANDRAN, MURALI BHAVAN, PANNIVIZHA, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMANDANT, KAP 3RD BN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., TRIVANDRUM-34. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA FOR R1 SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.1730 of 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November , 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair .J, This appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the reduction in compensation on account of the alleged contributory negligence against the appellant by 20% is not tenable. The standing counsel for the Insurance company pointed out that the doctor who issued wound certificate, noticed the smell of alcohol in breath of the appellant. He also submitted that the appellant might have driven the vehicle carelessly under the influence of the alcohol. We find force in this contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company. So much so, the said contention is rightly found by the M.A.C.T. against the appellant, we notice that the doctor has not cared to take any blood test or any other test to examine whether the appellant has driven the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Besides this, even after getting the wound certificate, the driver of the Police Vehicle which caused the accident, was charge sheeted. We feel the percentage of contributory negligence fixed by M.A.C.T. at the rate of 20% calls for interference, because there is no finding that the appellant has driven the vehicle at the time of the accident, under the M.A.C.A. No. 1730 of 2006 -2- influence of alcohol. However, driving, having consumed alcohol is a thing not to be encouraged we re-fix a minimum contributory negligence of 10% on the appellant. So far the claim for enhancement of compensation is concerned, the counsel for the appellant has relied on the photographs of the appellant which shows extensive damages on his legs. It is submitted that the appellant was an unmarried man at the time of the accident and even now he remain unmarried on account of the deformity caused by the injuries. Considering the pain and suffering and the loss of enjoyment in life especially loss of marriage prospects, we enhance the compensation by Rs. 25,000/- The Insurance Company is directed to pay the additional compensation at the rate of 7 ½ % interest per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. This appeal is allowed to the above extent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1730 of 2006 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 18th November, 2008