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 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 246 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.1065/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: -------------------------------------- P.T. THOMAS @ PUTHETTU THANKACHAN, S/O. THOMAS THOMAS, NOW RESIDING AT "REKHA", PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM PUTHETTU HOUSE, BAISONVALLY P.O. (VIA.) CHITHIRAPURAM, IDUKKI. BY ADV. MR.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. T.K. ABOOBACKER, S/O. MUHAMMED, KOTTALIYIL VEEDU, CHEEKKODU P.O OMANNOOR, IDUKKI. 2. SUDHEER, S/O. HANEETA, LAKSHAM VEEDU, ADIMALIKARA, ADIMALI P.O., MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. P.G. SANTHOSH, S/O. GOPALAN, PERUMPALLIKUNNEL, BAISON VALLEY, BAISON VALLY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. SUBHASH, S/O. BHASKARAN, EDAYAVADAYIL VEEDU, BAISONVALLEY P.O., (VIA), CHITHIRAPURAM, IDUKKI. 5. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KOTHAMANGALAM BRANCH. R5 BY ADV. MR.VPK.PANICKER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ ----------------------------- M.A.C.A No.246 of 2003-C ------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T P.R.Ramachandra Menon J Inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the injuries sustained by the appellant is the subject matter of the appeal. The appellant was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No.KL-6-363 owned by the third respondent, driven by the fourth respondent and insured with the fifth respondent. While so, another jeep bearing registration No.KL 11-A 7605 owned by the first respondent and driven by the second respondent came from the opposite direction and collided with the other jeep, causing serious injuries to the appellant leading to the claim. 2. Fifth respondent, the insurer of the jeep in which the claimant was travelling, alone chose to contest the matter, whereas the others remained ex-parte. Evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A11 adduced on behalf of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced from either side. 3. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal M.A.C.A No.246 of 2003-C : 2 : arrived at a clear finding that the accident was only because of the negligence on the part of the second respondent, driver of the jeep which came from the opposite direction and hit against the vehicle in which the injured/claimant was travelling. 4. With regard to the fixation of quantum, the case of the claimant as projected in the claim petition was that he was a coolie worker, earning a monthly income of Rs.2,500/-. Absolutely, no evidence was adduced by the claimant before the Tribunal to substantiate the monthly income. In the said circumstance, taking note of the fact that the accident was occurred in the year 1995, the Tribunal reckoned the monthly income only at a notional level of Rs.1,600/-. The serious nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant was discussed in para 7 of the Award. The case of the claimant was that, by virtue of the injuries, he suffered 10% permanent partial disability as certified in Ext.A9 disability certificate issued by one of the doctors of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The claimant did not choose to examine the doctor, who issued Ext.A9 certificate nor did he adduce any evidence to substantiate the pleadings as to anything about the alleged disability. Despite this, the Tribunal found that M.A.C.A No.246 of 2003-C : 3 : the contents in Ext.A9 were acceptable and the permanent partial disability, certified as 10%, was reckoned by the Tribunal and proceeded to award compensation. Observing that the claimant was aged 35 years, the appropriate multiplier was fixed as '17' and a sum of Rs.32,640/- was awarded under this head. The Tribunal awarded amounts under other permissible heads, such as Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.9,600/- towards loss of earning for six months, Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses including bystanders expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards the transportation charges, Rs.250/- towards damage to clothing and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, thus granting a total compensation of Rs.1,22,490/- which was directed to be satisfied by the first and second respondents with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very much low. It is also stated that the Tribunal ought to have reckoned the monthly income as Rs.2,500/-. Admittedly the accident occurred in 1995 and no evidence was adduced by the claimant, either oral or documentary, M.A.C.A No.246 of 2003-C : 4 : to substantiate the employment or income. Under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was brought into force from 14.11.1994, in the case of persons having no income, a sum of Rs.15,000/- can be reckoned as the notional income. In the instant case, the Tribunal, notwithstanding the fact that no evidence was adduced by the appellant/claimant regarding the occupation or income, a sum of Rs.19,200/- has been reckoned as the notional annual income (Rs.1,600/- per month). Similarly, eventhough the appropriate multiplier in the case of persons aged above 35 years as given in the second schedule is only '16', the Tribunal reckoned it as '17'. This being the position, the quantum of compensation awarded in respect of permanent disability does not call for any interference. 6. However, we find that the appellant/claimant sustained very serious injuries as discussed in para 8 of the Award. The Tribunal itself found it necessary to award the loss of earning for a period six months. We find that the claimant/appellant being a general worker, would have been made to refrain from his general work at least for a further period of three months more and in such circumstances, we award a further sum of Rs.4,800/- under this M.A.C.A No.246 of 2003-C : 5 : head (Rs.1,600 x 3). The compensation awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life at Rs.15,000/- appears to be on the lower side and hence we find it fit and proper to award a further sum of Rs.5,000/- under this head as well. The amounts awarded under other heads are very much adequate, which do not call for any modification. In the result, the appellant is granted a total sum of Rs.9,800/- as additional compensation, which will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is allowed in part. No cost. P.R.RAMAN (JUDGE) P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE) ab