IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 782 of 2010() ----------------------------- OPMV.1777/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): --------------------- LINO VARGHESE, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SRI.A.M.VARGHESE, TYPE IV-32,NPOL QUARTERS TRIKKAKARA PO, TRIKKAKARA VILLAGE ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 021 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.BEENA DEVASSY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SR.OPERATION MANAGER BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, IRIMPANAM PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 309. 2. M.K.MUKUNDAN, S/O.KUTTAPPA KAIMAL, MOOLEPPUNATHIL HOUSE, NEAR PARAPPAKKODE L.P.SCHOOL KULAYITTIKKARA PO, KULAYITTIKKARA VILLAGE, PIN 682 315. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THOPPUMPADY, COCHIN-5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING PKK A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI JJ. --------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A NO. 782 OF 2010 ---------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in OP(MV) No. 1777/2003 on the file of Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 23.6.2009 awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,93,927/- to the claimant for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: The claimant was aged 18 at the time of accident and he is a B tech degree holder. On May 22, 2003 at 4.45 p.m, the claimant was cycling along with southern side of Kakkanadu– Palarivattom road and when he reached near Colony bus stop a tanker lorry came at a high speed from behind and knocked him down. The claimant sustained very serious injuries. According to the claimant the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, the 2nd respondent. The 1st M.A.C.A NO. 782 OF 2010 2 respondent as the owner, the 2nd respondent as the driver and 3rd respondent as the insurer of the offending lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. The 1st and 2nd respondents, the owner and driver of the offending lorry respectively remained absent and were set ex-parte by the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, the insurer of the offending lorry filed written statement admitting the policy and further contended that there was also negligence on the part of the claimant. 4. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,93,927/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A NO. 782 OF 2010 3 5. Heard the counsel for the claimant. No notice was issued to the respondents as on going through the judgment of the Tribunal, we felt that the appeal can be disposed of even without issuing notice to the respondents. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, the driver of the offending lorry is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ? 7. The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed from Ext. A2, the copy of the wound certificate issued from the Medical Centre Hospital, Ernakulam. “Abrasions on right side of face, on left ankle, extensive abrasion on left thigh, left knee, laceration on left ankle, extensive degloving injury of right thigh, right knee posteriorly and fracture of left acetabulum and inferior public ramas left”. He was admitted M.A.C.A NO. 782 OF 2010 4 in the hospital on 22.5.2003 and was discharged on 5.7.2003. Ext.A5 is the treatment certificate issued by the Medical Centre Hospital, Ernakulam, which shows that the claimant has also sustained crushing of vastus medialis and lateralis muscles, with portion of biceps femoris, massive degloving of skin and subcutaneous tissue anteriorly upto mid thigh and knee. Ext.A6 is the disability certificate issued by the General Hospital,Ernakulam, which shows that the claimant is suffering from disability of 20%. 8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,93,927/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under: i) Disability caused : Rs. 1,15,200 ii)Byestander expense : Rs. 4,500 iii)Loss of amenities : Rs. 10,000 iv)For medicine : Rs. 1,14,600 v) Transport expenses : Rs. 3,000 vi)Extra nourishment : Rs. 5,000 vii)Pain and sufferings : Rs. 25,000 viii)Loss of amenities : Rs. 22,000 in future. M.A.C.A NO. 782 OF 2010 5 9. The counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for disability caused, pain and suffering endured, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Taking into consideration of the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment the claimant has undergone, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. That being so, the appeal has to be dismissed . In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost. A.K. BASHEER (JUDGE) P.Q. BARKATH ALI (JUDGE) pkk M.A.C.A NO. 782 OF 2010 6