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 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 688 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.187/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------- RENJITH (MINOR), AGED 13 YEARS, REP. BY NEXT FRIEND FATHER V.K.CHAMI, 50 YEARS, S/O.UNIYANDAN, VADAKKETHARA HOUSE, AMBUTHY, MUTTIL POST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------- 1. MATHAI, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 40 YEARS, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, THRIKAIPATTA, D/L.NO.4393/79 BADGE, NO.7/88 (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE KL-12/7479 BUS) 2. THE MANAGING PARTNER, THRIKAIPATTA TRAVELS LTD., THRIKAIPATTA, MEPPADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (R.C.OWNER OF VEHICLE KL-12/7479 BUS). 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE PB.NO.11, MOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, ARUYIDATH PALAM, CALICUT, CERTIFICATE NO.18342, (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE KL-12/7479) ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------- M.A.C.A No.688 of 2005 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Barkath Ali,J. In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimant in O.P (MV) No.187 /99 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated December 21, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.21,750/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the injury sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts in brief are these: The claimant is a boy aged 13 and the claim petition was filed by his father as his next friend. On February 21, 1999 at about 11.30 a.m. while the petitioner was pillion riding on the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KL-12A-3019 and reached at Thrikaipatta, a bus bearing Reg. No.KL-12-7479 driven by the 1st respondent came at a high speed and dashed against the motor cycle. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by the 1st respondent . First respondent as the driver, 2nd respondent as the owner and 3rd M.A.C.A No.688 of 2005 2 respondent as the insurer of the offending bus are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. He has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/. 3. The driver and owner of the offending bus, respondents 1 and 2 respectively remained absent and were set ex parte by the Tribunal. Third respondent, insurer of the offending bus filed a written statement admitting the policy but contended that there was also negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle involved in the accident. 4. The claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.21,750/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, the driver of the offending M.A.C.A No.688 of 2005 3 bus is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arise for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. The claimant is a minor boy aged 13. He sustained the following injuries. 1. swelling at the root of the nose 2. abrasion back of right ear lob 3. abrasion over right mastoid region 4. lacerated wound on right index finger 5 abrasion on right middle finger 6. lacerated wound on the right wrist 7. fracture of right clavicle 6. Ext.A3 is the copy of the wound certificate. Ext.A4 disability certificate shows that he has suffered a permanent disability of 3%. 7. The Tribunal awarded Rs.21,750/- as compensation. The break up of the award amount is as under: Transport to hospital - Rs. 250 Extra nourishment - 1,000 Bystander expense - 1,000 Medical expenses - 2,000 Pain and suffering - 10,000 For the disability caused - 7,500 --------------- Total 21,750 ======== M.A.C.A No.688 of 2005 4 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded under the head disability is very low and that the loss of income of the claimant should have been computed according to the minimum prescribed under the II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. There is force in the above contention. Under II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the monthly income of a non earning member of a family is taken as Rs.1,500/-. In the present case as the claimant is a boy aged 13. Therefore, his monthly income can be fixed at Rs.1500- as prescribed under II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. The multiplier can also be taken as 15 as shown in the II Schedule. The percentage of disability shown in Ext.A4 is not seriously disputed. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,100/-. Thus on this count he is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.600/-. 9. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that no compensation was awarded for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained and the disability caused to the M.A.C.A No.688 of 2005 5 claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/-would be reasonable for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The compensation awarded under other heads appears to be reasonable. Therefore, we are not disturbing the same. 10. Thus the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.10,600/-. He is entitled to proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the entire compensation awarded including the enhanced compensation. The 3rd respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment before the Tribunal. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of, as found above. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE ma M.A.C.A No.688 of 2005 6 M.A.C.A No.688 of 2005 7