IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 634 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.206/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- ZAIFUL @ TONY, S/O. SIRAJ ISLAM, MOLOPARAMBU HOUSE, PONKUNNAM VILLAGE, 1st MILE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. JOSE KURIAKOSE, S/O.KURIAKOSE, NEW INDIA FINANCIERS, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, RESIDING AT PAZHAYAMADAM HOUSE, VAIKOM. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., TRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, P.B.NO. 48, MARKET JUNCTION, REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.634 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JUNE 30, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimant in OP(MV) 206/1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal, dated, May 31, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.21,500/- 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 August 2, 1998 at about 4.30 p.m. the claimant was travelling in a car bearing registration No.KL5E/3200 at Kilimanoor. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st respondent, it hit against an electric post on the side of the road and overturned. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent as the driver-cum-owner and the 2nd respondent as the insurer of the offending car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. He claimed a compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-. M.A.C.A. 634 of 2004 2 3. Respondent No.1, the owner-cum-driver of the offending car, remained absent before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent, insurer of the offending car, filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 2nd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.21,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.1000/-. The 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 Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent 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.A4, copy of the wound certificate, issued from the hospital: M.A.C.A. 634 of 2004 3 “Depressed fracture frontal bone and lacerated injury from frontal region to eye brow.” Ext.A5 is the CT scan report. Ext.A7 is a referal OP card. The claimant was aged 18 at the time of the accident and as a labourer used to earn Rs.2500/- per month, according to the claimant. 8. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1500/- and awarded a total compensation of Rs.21,500/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- loss of earnings for 3 months - Rs.4,500/- treatment expenses - 1,500/- transportation - 500/- pain and suffering - 10,000/- loss of amenities - 5,000/- 9. The Counsel for the appellant/claimant sought enhancement of the compensation awarded for the loss of amenities, enjoyment of life and under other heads. He also submitted that no compensation was awarded for the disability caused. No documents were produced by the claimant before the Tribunal to show that he has suffered any disability due to the injuries sustained by him. Therefore the Tribunal is perfectly justified in not awarding compensation for the alleged disability caused. M.A.C.A. 634 of 2004 4 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained, we feel that for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable. Thus on this count he is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.5000/-. 11. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1500/- and awarded Rs.4500/- towards loss of earnings for three months. As the claimant was aged only 18, we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed as Rs.2000/-. Therefore towards loss of earnings, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.6000/-. Thus on this count he is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1500/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. 12. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.6500/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt M.A.C.A. 634 of 2004 5 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 mt/-