IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 26 OF 2005() OPMV.70/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,PUNALUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SUSAMA THOMAS, CHENKILATHU VEEDU, SALAMPURAM, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: 1. Y.THOMAS, CHENKILATHU VEEDU, SALEMPURAM, PATHANAPURAM. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PUNALUR BRANCH. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS- 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI. 4. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARTIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MACA 26/2005 (ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE SUO MOTO IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.8.2008 IN M.A.C.A. 26/2005.) R2 BY ADVS. M/S. T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER , S.S.JEEVAN & T.GOPALAKRISHNAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON 23/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T RAMAN, J. WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP FOR CONSIDERATION, NONE APPEARED. THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ALSO. CALLED THE NAME OF THE PARTIES. ABSENT. DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. 23.10.2009. SD/-, P.R. RAMACHANDRAMENON, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 26 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. Appellant sustained the following injuries in a road traffic accident. 1). Fracture right tibial shaft. 2). Both bone fracture right leg. 3). Tenderness over right leg. 4). Laceration over the medial right leg. 2. She claimed compensation from the respondent herein alleging negligence on the part of the owner cum driver of the two wheeler on which she was traveling as a pillion. 3. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant passed an award allowing her to recover a sum of Rs.40,900/- with 6% interest from respondent No.2, Insurance Company. 4. The above award is challenged in this appeal contending interalia that the amount granted under various heads towards compensation is too megre and inadequate. 5. The primary grievance of the appellant is that her M.A.C.A. No. 26 of 2005 2 monthly notional income has been reckoned by the Tribunal only as Rs.1,200/-. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the grievance of the appellant is justified. Therefore, we reckon the notional monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2,500/-. 6. In Exhibit A9 certificate the disability of the appellant was assessed as 13%. But the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on the basis of the said document, though a sum of Rs.2,000/- for disability and a further sum of Rs.12,000/- under the head of loss of earning power have been awarded, which in our view is totally inadequate. Accepting the percentage of disability as 8 and the multiplier as 15 the disability compensation is calculated as hereunder:- 2500 X 12 X 8 X 15/100=36,000 7. The above sum of Rs.36,000/- is in lieu of Rs.14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for disability and loss of earning power. The appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities. Compensation awarded for pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Thus the appellant shall get enhanced compensation of Rs.39,000/-. The appellant shall be entitled to get interest @7.5% as against 6% interest by the Tribunal. In all other respects the award passed by the M.A.C.A. No. 26 of 2005 3 tribunal is confirmed. 8. When this appeal came up for consideration on August 21, 2008 a Division Bench of this Court had noticed several hazards that the pillion riders, especially ladies had to face while traveling on two wheelers. This Court, after referring to the various provisions contained in the Act and Rules had issued some directions to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to bestow their attention on these issues and report the steps taken in the matter. 9. In response to the above direction the Joint Secretary attached to the Ministry of Law and Justice in the Government of India has informed that the issue regarding necessity for amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules with a view to address the perils and problems that are being faced by women pillion riders has been referred to the Law Commission of India. It is further informed that the Government will take further action in the matter on the basis of the recommendation of the Law Commission. 10. Similarly, the State of Kerala has also filed an affidavit through its under Secretary attached in the Department of Transport stating that stringent action is being taken against drivers who violate traffic rules and the provisions contained M.A.C.A. No. 26 of 2005 4 in the Act and Rules. 11. In view of the above undertaking given by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, we do not propose to issue any further direction at this juncture. However, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 shall ensure that necessary follow up action is taken in the matter expeditiously, keeping in view the directions issued by this Court in its interim order referred to above. The appeal is disposed of with the above direction. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. rkc