IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 661 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.959/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- CIJI JOSE, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. JOSE ABRAHAM, KIZHAKKEUNNIPILLIL HOUSE, NEAR MUTHALIAMADHOM, KEERIKODE KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.R.SHYAM KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. JINSON JACOB, S/O. JACOB, NIRAPPEL HOUSE, VAZHAKKULAM KARA, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE. 2. N.M. GEORGE, NELLIKUNNEL HOUSE, KADALIKADU P.O., MANJALLOOR VILLAGE. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.PATTALI FOR R3 SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2008, ALONG WITH M.A.C.A.NO.663/2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.661, 663 and 669 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 11th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P. (MV) Nos.959/01, 958/01 and 483/02 respectively. O.P.(MV) Nos.959 and 958 of 2001 were filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident and the other case is filed for damages caused to the vehicle in the accident. 2. The claimant in O.P.(MV) 958/01 along with his daughter(claimant in O.P.(MV) 959/01) were travelling in a Muruti Omni Van and there was an accident on account of collision between it and a bus. The father as well as the daughter sustained personal injuries, and the vehicle also sustained damages. The Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.24,790/- to the daughter and Rs.23,415/- to the father and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for damages to the vehicle. It is against that decision these appeals are preferred for enhancement. MACA No.661/05 & connected cases 2 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the Insurance Company. As far as O.P.(MV) No.959/01 is concerned, which relates to the daughter, it can be seen that she was a student doing her MBBS in the Medical College, Kozhikode when the accident took place. She had sustained multiple soft tissue injuries and a grade fracture of the mandible and she was treated as an inpatient in Excelsior Hospital, Thodupuzha from 30.4.2001 to 5.5.2001. Thereafter, she was treated in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,000/- for transport expenses, Rs.300/- for damage to clothing, Rs.500/- for extra-nourishment, Rs.500/- for byestander's expenses, Rs.2,491/- for treatment expenses, Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- for loss of part of the academic year. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend, considering the nature of the injuries, the compensation is inadequate. I feel the Tribunal has awarded reasonable amount under the concerned heads. But the Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that when a young girl studying for MBBS sustained a fracture of the mandible, certainly it would have caused loss of MACA No.661/05 & connected cases 3 amenities and enjoyment in life to her, especially under the circumstances that she was unable to attend the classes for a long time. Since it is evident that there had been loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, I feel it is a fit case where an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. There is nothing else to show any other disablement and therefore, I fix Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life to the appellant in MACA 661/2005. 5. As far as O.P.(MV) No.958/01 is concerned, the appellant/father had sustained a fracture on the shaft of fourth meta carpel bone. He had lacerated injury on the right forearm also. He was also treated in the very same hospital and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.23,415/-. I find that the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable amount for loss of earnings, for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. The actual expenses incurred for the treatment also has been granted. Altogether, it is also just and proper determination of the compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the said amount does not call for any interference. MACA No.661/05 & connected cases 4 6. O.P.(MV) 483/02 is filed for compensation regarding property damages. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the vehicle has suffered considerable damages on account of its impact with the bus. It is true that a private surveyor was appointed for the purpose of assessing the damages. The claimant has raised a contention that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.77,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/-. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had made available for perusal a copy of the surveyor's report. I had perused it and it can be seen that the surveyor has categorized the spare parts into three, viz., spare parts for which 25% depreciation has to be given, spare parts for which 50% depreciation has to be given and spare parts for which no depreciation can be given. After deducting 25% for certain spare parts, he arrived at a figure of Rs.9,385/-. After deducting 50% for certain other spare parts, he arrived at a figure of Rs.2,362/- and for the glasses, he estimated the value at Rs.1,228/-, thus totalling to Rs.12,975/- as the value of the spare parts after depreciation. 7. Considering the damages sustained and considering MACA No.661/05 & connected cases 5 the fact that the impact is with a heavy vehicle(bus), necessarily such damages would have been caused and therefore, I am inclined to accept the surveyor's report. The surveyor has also given the details, fixing the labour charges at Rs.13,500/-. It also appears to be only reasonable, taking into account the nature of the repair work involved. The surveyor has calculated damages for painting, only for the portion with matching colour, which shows that he had been very careful in dealing with the matter. The over all damages according to the surveyor comes to Rs.26,475/-, which is reasonable and that has to be allowed. In other words, an enhanced compensation of Rs.6,475/- is liable to be granted in this case. 8. In the result, the appeals are disposed of as follows :- In MACA 661/2005, the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of the petition till realization. MACA 663/2005 stands dismissed. In MACA 669/2005, the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.6,475/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of the petition till realization. In MACA MACA No.661/05 & connected cases 6 661/2005 and MACA 669/2005, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. tgs M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. Nos.661, 663 and 669 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 11th June, 2008.