IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 118 of 2002() ------------------------------- OP(MV).2084/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- HAMEED, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.THOPPIYIL KOCHUMOHAMMED, PARIKUNNATH HOUSE, OPP. AL-AMEEN MADRASA, NEW OVER BRIDGE ROAD, POOTHOEL, THRISSUR-4. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. KUMARA VELU, S/O.ISSEKKI THEVAR, ANSARI STREET, DOOR NO.8, RAM NAGAR, GANDHIPURAM, COIMBATORE DIST, TAMILNADU. 2. ARUCHAMY, S/O.PAPPANNA GOUNDEER, HOUSE NO.143, PILLAYARKOIL STREET, DR. SIVANANDA COLONY, TATA ROAD, COIMBATORE. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., COIMBATORE-1, TAMILNADU. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN KOSHY - R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.118 OF 2002 ------------------------------------- Dated 19th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant/claimant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the third respondent insurance company. Appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/=. Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,69,000/= inclusive of medical expenses, pain and sufferings, loss of earning power etc. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. 2. The accident occurred on 16.11.1996. According to the claimant, he was employed as a driver, but, no evidence was adduced to show that he was a driver. Driving licence was not produced. Hence, the Tribunal fixed Rs.1,500/= as the monthly income. We see no ground to interfere with the same in the absence of data. He was aged 40 and, hence, 15 is the apt multiplier to be taken. With regard to the injuries, Tribunal described the injuries at paragraph 8 of the award as follows: “After the accident, the petitioner was taken to West Fort Hospital, Thrissur as evident from Ext.A5 wound certificate. X-ray revealed MFA.118/2002 2 fracture to the left parietal bone and fracture to both bones of left leg. Ext.A7 series are the discharge summaries. He who was admitted to West Fort Hospital on 16.11.1996 had undergone treatment till 25.12.1996. There was haemorrhagic contusion on the parietal area also. He was initially treated by wound debridment and external fixator with bone grafting. Post operative stability was unacceptable and hence he was changed over to illizorov ring external fixator. The wound was left open and dressing was given. The head injury was treated by neuro surgeon. Another discharge summary of Ext.A7 series would reveal that he was re- admitted to the same hospital on 15.7.1997 and had undergone treatment till 2.8.1997. This admission was due to the non-union of the fractures. For this corticotomy and sequestructomy and bone transport was done. A slow distruction was started after 7th day and thus he was re-admitted on 19.8.1997 and had undergone treatment till 6.9.1997. This admission was for the treatment of mal alignment. For curing that olive wire traction was given. Check X-ray showed new bone formation. He was again admitted on 30.3.199 and was discharged on 3.4.1999. The last admission was for the complaint of post traumatic stiffness to the left ankle. This was treated with mobilisation and heel raise.” Ext.A9 is the disability certificate issued from the hospital in which he was treated. Considering the injuries suffered on his leg as well as neuro defects, apart from certifying that he has a temporary disability of 100% for a period of three months and a further MFA.118/2002 3 disability of 40% for one year, permanent disability at 20% was assessed. Tribunal did not award any compensation on multiplier basis. But, Tribunal has observed as follows: “I had occasion to see the petitioner on the date of the trial. At present there is shortening to the left leg. There is wasting of muscle on the lower part of the left leg and the left leg has an irregular shape. Undoubtedly, the injury has caused a permanent disability to the petitioner and the same has to be compensated.” We are of the view that Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on multiplier basis. Disability certificate issued by competent medical attendant produced by the parties ought to have been relied upon considering the physical difficulties and neuro defects caused due to the accident in the absence of any contrary materials. If that be so, compensation payable will be Rs.54,000/= (1500 x 12 x 20 x 15). Tribunal has awarded only Rs.35,000/= on 100 this count. Thus, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.19,000/= under this head. Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation under other heads and there is no need to enhance the same. The above additional amount of Rs.19,000/= should be MFA.118/2002 4 deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit, over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal. On deposit of the amount, appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. The appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks