IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 1088 of 2005() -------------------------------- OPMV.2649/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT: ------------------------ CHANDHINI @ SANTHINI, W/O. MOHANAN, PERUMBIDI HOUSE, NEHRU NAGAR, VITH STREET, PLOT NO.255, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. K.A. THOMACHAN, S/O. ANTONY, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, KAHANNA NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JOSE P.V., S/O. VARKEY, POOVATHUMKUDY HOUSE, PUTHENKAD, PUTHUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICE, THRISSUR. 4. ALICE JOSE, W/O. C.T. JOSE, OLAKENGIL HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 5. VIJU DAVIS, S/O. DEVASSY, KONIKKARA HOUSE, ATTOOR, KUTTUR, THRISSUR. 6. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R6 SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN FOR R1,2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: pkk A. K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 1088 OF 2005 -------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY,2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant a lady aged 26 in OP(MV)No.2649/2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 2, 2005 awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,30,200/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: On April 19, 2000 at about 8.15 A.M. at Manapadi, Peramangalam on Thrissur-Kunnamkulam National Highway the bus bearing registration No. KL-8/J-5151, in which the claimant was travelling collided head on with a bus bearing registration No.KL-8/D- 1116. The claimant who was travelling in the bus bearing registration No. KL-8/J-5151 sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of M.A.C.A. NO. 1088 OF 2005 2 drivers of both the buses. Respondents 1 to 3, as the owner, driver and insurer of the bus bearing registration No. KL-8/J-5151 and respondents 4 to 6 as the owner, driver and insurer of the bus bearing registration No. KL-8/D-1116 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.12,53,000/-. 3. Respondents 1,2,4 and 5, the owners and drivers of both the buses remained absent and were ex-parte by the Tribunal. Respondents 3 and 6 insurers of the respective buses filed written statement admitting the policy, but attributed the negligence to the driver of other bus. 4. This OP was tried along with the other O.Ps filed by other injured persons in the same accident and a common award was passed. Altogether PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts. A1 to A52 were marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of respondents, Ext.B1 was marked. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that accident occurred due to the negligence of drivers of both the buses and awarded a compensation of Rs. M.A.C.A. NO. 1088 OF 2005 3 3,30,200/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and a cost of Rs. 12,000/-. Claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/ claimant and the counsel for the insurance companies. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of drivers of both the buses 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.A14, the copy of wound certificate issued from the hospital: (a) Amputation of right hand at shoulder level (b) Head injury © Complete loss of vision to right eye (d) Multiple bodily injuries Ext.A19 is the discharge summary card issued issued from West Fort, M.A.C.A. NO. 1088 OF 2005 4 hospital, Thrissur. It is stated therein that the claimant was in the hospital from April 19 to May 4 of 2000. Ext.A24, the Ophthalmic report issued by Ophthalmic Surgeon shows that there was completely loss of vision to her right eye. Ext.A25, the certificate of disability issued by the Doctor, Medical College hospital, Thrissur shows that the injured suffers a permanent physical disability of 90%. Ext.A28, the certificate issued by ophthalmic Surgeon, Mother Hospital, Thrissur shows that she has 20% of disability consequent to the loss of vision to right eye. 8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 3,30,200/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under: For loss of earnings : Rs. 12,000 (for 6 months) Medical expense including : Rs. 32,000 expenses for transportation and bystander For pain and suffering : Rs. 15,000 For loss of amenities : Rs. 12,000 Disability caused : Rs.2,59,200 ------------ Total: :Rs. 3,30,200 ============ M.A.C.A. NO. 1088 OF 2005 5 9. The counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for the disability caused, for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and for pain and suffering. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 2,000/- and adopted a multiplier 18 and took the disability as 60% and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,59,200/- for the permanent disability caused. 10. Taking into consideration of the fact that her one hand was amputated and there was loss of vision to one eye, we feel that her percentage for disability can be reasonably fixed as 90%. As the claimant was aged 25 at the time of accident, we feel that proper multiplier in this case would be 18. As PW2 she testified before the Tribunal that she used to earn Rs. 150/- per day by conducting a small dairy farm. But no document was produced by her to show her income. Therefore, the monthly income of the claimant taken as 2000/- by the Tribunal appears reasonable. Thus calculated, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,88,800/-( 2000 x 12 x 18 x 90%) for the disability caused. Thus, on this count claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,29,600/-. M.A.C.A. NO. 1088 OF 2005 6 11. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,000 for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration serious nature of injuries sustained, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus, on this the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 13,000/-. 12. The tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering which, in our view, quite inadequate. We feel that a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on this count. As regards Compensation awarded under other heads, we feel that the same to be reasonable . Therefore, we are not disturbing the same. Thus, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,52,600/-. The claimant is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The 3rd and 6th respondents being the insurers of offending vehicles equally deposit the amount before the Tribunal in equal shares within two months from the date M.A.C.A. NO. 1088 OF 2005 7 of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of 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 PKK M.A.C.A. NO. 1088 OF 2005 8 M.A.C.A. NO. 1088 OF 2005 9