IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 2100 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.939/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- AJITHKUMAR @ MANOJ, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 31 YEARS, PREETHA BHAVAN, MANKUZHI, SREEKARIYAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM-17. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. S.R.SATHEESH, S/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, PUNARTHAM, HOUSE NO. S.P. 806(1), AYIROORPARA, BHAGAVATHIPURAM, POTHENCODE P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. MADHUSOODANAN NAIR, M.R.BHAVAN, BHAGAVATHIPURAM, SANTIPURAM, AYIROORPARA P.O. POTHENCODE VIA, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 3. THE KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE OF INSURANCE, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM-1. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 2100 of 2007 ----------------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Compensation of Rs.77,310/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is stated as inadequate and is sought to be enhanced in this appeal. 2. The accident occurred on 24.03.2001 at about 9.30 p.m. when the motor cycle ridden by the claimant and another motor cycle owned by the 1st respondent and ridden by the 2nd respondent, which was coming from the opposite side, dashed against each other, causing injuries to the claimant, leading to the claim preferred before the Tribunal. 3. The owner as well as the rider of the motor cycle did not contest the matter and were set ex-parte. The 3rd respondent, the State Insurance Department, who had insured the vehicle filed a written statement disputing the negligence attributed on the rider of the offending motor cycle, also contending that the accident was only because of the rashness and negligence attributable to the injured MACA No. 2100 of 2007 2 claimant himself. No oral evidence was adduced from either side and the only evidence was Exts.A1 to A5 produced and marked from the side of the claimant. After weighing the available evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was solely because of the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle KL 01/O-5636, i.e., the second respondent. 4. With regard to the fixation of quantum, the Tribunal observed that the claimant had sustained head injuries involving fracture to the skull and serious consequences as discussed in paragraph 8 of the Award. Taking note of the gravity of the injuries sustained and the permanent disability certified as 10%, the Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads. Observing that the occupation or income was not proved, Rs.2,100/- was reckoned as the monthly income on a notional basis. A sum of Rs.1,500/- was awarded towards the loss of earning, Rs.450/- towards the transportation charges, Rs.800/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.400/- towards damage to clothing, Rs.4,000/- towards medical expenses covered by Ext.A14 series bills, Rs.800/- towards by-stander’s expenses, Rs.14,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and a sum of Rs.45,360/- towards the permanent disability; thus granting a total compensation of Rs.77,310/- which was ordered to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the liability was shifted to the shoulders of the 3rd MACA No. 2100 of 2007 3 respondent/Insurer. 5. Obviously, the fixation of negligence as above has become final, as no appeal has been filed from the part of the 3rd respondent. With regard to the quantum, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, despite the production of Ext.A15 salary certificate showing the monthly income of Rs.7,000/-, the Tribunal has reckoned only Rs.2,100/-, which is stated as not correct or proper. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent/State Insurance Department however submits that the said certificate has been issued by a Private Limited Company and that the same cannot be accepted in evidence at all. More so, when the contents of the said certificate have note been proved by examining the employer or the person who issued the said certificate. Even the claimant did not choose to mount the box and in the said circumstance, the Award passed by the Tribunal fixing the extent of compensation under the permissible heads is stated as very much in conformity with the available materials on record and it does not call for any interference. 6. True, the claimant did not choose to adduce any oral evidence; particularly with regard to the monthly income and also on such other relevant aspects. However, it remains a fact that the claimant was a man of just 25 years of age as on the date of accident and was stated as MACA No. 2100 of 2007 4 working as an Assistant Manager in a private limited company, as shown in Ext.P15. It also remains a fact that the employment was not seriously doubted or disputed from the part of the 3rd respondent, who did not take any steps to ascertain the factual particulars and to have it brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Weighing the facts and figures as a whole, we find it fit and proper to have the monthly income refixed as Rs.2,500/-, in place Rs.2,100/-. On re-working the compensation payable for the permanent disability as above, it is found that the appellant is entitled for a further sum of Rs.8,640/- under this head. Only a sum of Rs.1,500/- has been awarded towards the 'loss of earning'. We find that the said amount is very much on the lower side and we award a further sum of Rs.3,000/- under this head as well. Considering the nature and extent of injuries, we award an additional sum of Rs.6,000/-, over and above Rs.14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering. Evaluating the adverse circumstances resulted, placing hurdles in the life and career of the appellant, who was aged only 25 years of age, we think it fit and proper to award a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. 7. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get a total sum of Rs.22,640/- as the balance compensation payable in respect of the injuries sustained in the accident. The said amount shall carry interest at MACA No. 2100 of 2007 5 the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition, till the date of realisation. We direct the 3rd respondent Insurer (State Insurance Department) to deposit the said amount with interest as aforesaid, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Appeal is allowed in part. No cost. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dnc