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 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 927 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.1354/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------- PAILO.S/O.JOSEPH,PARAMATTATHIL HOUSE, KALIKAVU KARA,KURAVILANGAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. JOSEPH,S/O.OUSEPH,KALLARACKAL HOUSE, THALAPARA BHAGOM, THALAYOLAPRAMBU KARA,VADAYAR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., TRIPUNITHURA, ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------- M.A.C.A No.927 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 23rd February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Barkath Ali,J. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P. (MV) No.1354/2003 of the M.A.C.T, Kottayam challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated August 25, 2006 awarding a compensation of Rs.30,885/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the injury sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts in brief are these: The claimant is aged 65 and is an agriculturist. He has a monthly income of Rs.3,500/- according to him. On February 25, 2003 at 11.15 A.M at Vadayar, the claimant was travelling in a motor cycle. At that time, a Maruti car bearing Reg. No.KL5/G 3388 owned and driven by the 1st respondent came up at a high speed and dashed against the motor cycle. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruti Car by its driver, the 1st respondent. He has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. First respondent as the owner-cum-driver and second M.A.C.A No.927 of 2007 2 respondent as the insurer of the offending Maruti Car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant/claimant. 3. First respondent, the owner-cum-driver of the offending car remained absent and was set exparte by the Tribunal. Second respondent, insurer of the offending car filed a written statement admitting the policy and further contending that there was also negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. 4. On the side of the claimant, Exts. A1 to A11 were marked before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 2nd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.30,885/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and also Rs.2000/- as costs. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent is not challenged in this appeal. The only question which arise for consideration is M.A.C.A No.927 of 2007 3 whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 6. The appellant/claimant sustained abrasion and contusion on the left palm, both feet, both elbows and contusion on the left parietal region of scalp. Ext.A2 is the copy of the wound certificate issued from the Community Health Centre, Vaikom. Ext.A4 is the discharge card and Ext.A5 is the copy of the O.P card. Ext.A6 is the certificate issued from the hospital. Exts.A7 and A8 are medical bills. Ext.A9 series are taxi receipts. Ext.A10 is the copy of the policy of the offending maruti car. The Tribunal awarded compensation as follows: Loss of earnings - Rs.2,000 (at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month for one month Transport to Hospital supported by A9 series receipts - 11,325 Extra nourishment - 500 Damage to clothing - 500 Treatment expenses - 12,060 Bystanders Expenses - 500 Pain and suffering - 4,000 --------------------- Total 30,885 ======== 8. The counsel for the the appellant argued that the M.A.C.A No.927 of 2007 4 Tribunal is not justified in not awarding any compensation for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and for the disability caused. There is no substance in the above contention. No document is produced by the claimant to show that he has suffered any disability due to the injury sustained by him. He was not able to show that he has suffered any loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in not awarding the amount for permanent disability and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained and the period of treatment undergone by the claimant, we are of the view that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation. That being so, the appeal has only to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. A.K.BASHEER ,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI,JUDGE ma M.A.C.A No.927 of 2007 5 M.A.C.A No.927 of 2007 6 M.A.C.A No.927 of 2007 7 M.A.C.A No.927 of 2007 8 M.A.C.A No.927 of 2007 9