IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 MACA.No. 62 of 2010() --------------------- OPMV.508/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER IN OP(MV): ---------------------------------------- VELLOTHY, D/O.LATE AYYAPPAN, KOOTTALA HOUSE, NAYARANGADY DESOM, KODASSERY VILLAGE AND P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.V.BABY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV): ----------------------------------------------- 1. T.D.ROY, S/O.DEVASSY, THATHAMPILLY HOUSE, THOMMANA P.O., KADUPPISSERY. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., IRINJALAKUDA. ADV. MR.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 MR. MATHEWS JACOB B/O FOR R2 MR.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.62 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV).No.508/2006 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Irinjalakkuda. The O.P was filed seeking compensation for the injury sustained in a motor accident at Irinjalakkuda on 23.11.2005. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the first respondent and also held that the petitioner is entitled to `.29,100/- towards compensation from respondents jointly and severally with interest at 7% per annum. The claimant approached this Court complaining that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. 2. While the claimant was involved in tarring work on the road, she was hit down by the offending vehicle driven by the first respondent. The claimant was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur as inpatient for 24 days with fracture of base and neck of the 5th metatarsal and also fracture of the proximal phalanx of the 4th toe. Exts.A3 wound certificate and A4 discharge card also shows that the claimant suffered degloving ::2:: M.A.C.A.No.62 Of 2010 contaminated injury on the right foot, open fracture of 4th toe and the other fracture. It was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the petitioner's 4th toe of the right foot was amputated. The Tribunal accepted the said fact and also found, based on Ext.A5 discharge card, that the claimant was again admitted in the hospital as inpatient for another 16 days with granutating ulcer on the foot. The Tribunal, on noting serious injuries sustained by the claimant, observed that the claimant had sustained much due to the injuries including amputation. Ext.A7 disability certificate certified 9% permanent disability. The Tribunal held that the disability certified is not acceptable and that only 3% permanent disability is acceptable due to amputation. Compensation fixed under different heads is seriously under challenge in this appeal. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner sustained serious injuries in the accident, her admission as an inpatient in the hospital for a period of 41 days and considering the fact that her 4th toe was amputated, I am of the view that the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is not adequate and reasonable. ::3:: M.A.C.A.No.62 Of 2010 3. The monthly income of the petitioner is taken as `.1500/-. Considering the fact that the claimant is a worker the Tribunal ought to have fixed `.3,000/- as minimum monthly income. Loss of income was calculated, assessed and granted only for a period of three months. Considering the injuries sustained and the period of hospitalisation, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to six months' loss of earnings. The claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of `.13,500/- calculated as loss of income for a period of six months. For the probable extent and measure of pain and discomfort undergone by the petitioner, the Tribunal ought to have award adequate compensation. The Tribunal only granted `.10,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. The amount fixed is not reasonable and therefore, this Court re-fix the compensation under this head as `.20,000/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of `.10,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering. `.5,000/- granted towards discomfort and loss of amenities is also not reasonable. This Court re-fix `.10,000/- and thus the claimant is entitled to an additional ::4:: M.A.C.A.No.62 Of 2010 compensation of `.5,000/- under the said head. Thus, the claimant is entitled to `.28,500/- as additional compensation under different heads discussed above. To the extent, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award under challenge is modified. The appellant is entitled to realise an additional compensation of `.28,500/- from the respondents jointly and severally with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The additional compensation shall be payable by the second respondent within two months by way of a cheque in the name of the claimant. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-