IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.NO. 948 OF 2006() ----------------------------------- OPMV.1942/1994 OF II ADDL. M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- C.P.SABITHA, (D.O.B.14.5.79), D/O.LATE MADHAVAN, CHEMBRAKATTU PURAYIL, KODUVALLY.P.O, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJU THOMAS, SHAJI COTTAGE, DEVAGIRI.P.O, KOZHIKODE. 2. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CITY BRANCH OFFICE NO.2, SEEMA TOWER, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.948 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Thomas P. Joseph, J. A 15 year old girl sustained injuries in a motor accident on 8.1.1994. According to her while she was walking along the road, Jeep driven by the first respondent rashly and negligently hit her resulting in serious injuries. She was admitted in the Medical College Hospital and was subjected to operation. She claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- which was later enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-. Tribunal found that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent and that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the appellant. As against a claim for Rs.3,00,000/- appellant was allowed to realise Rs.1,48,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Appellant is aggrieved by what she described as insufficiency of the compensation and preferred this appeal. 2. Heard counsel for appellant and contesting respondent. 3. Point for consideration is whether appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation. 4. Perused the relevant records. M.A.C.A. No.948 of 2006 -: 2 :- 5. The Point: Exhibit A3 is the copy of the wound certificate. Exhibit A4 series are index cards issued from the hospital. It is revealed from the documents produced that the appellant suffered fracture of shaft of femur, fracture of right maxillary antrum and frontal bone, cerebral oedema, diminution of vision of right eye and extensive soft tissue injury on the right thorax. She was treated with wound debridement, ORIF and K-nail both sides. She underwent inpatient treatment for 24 days. Exhibit C1 is the certificate issued by the Medical Board wherein, disability consequent to the injuries is stated as 40% of which 30%, is visual disability. Tribunal fixed the notional annual income of the appellant as 15,000/-, adopted 15 as the multiplier and accepted the disability certified in Exhibit C1. Thus a total compensation of Rs.90,000/- was awarded for disability. Rs.23,000/- was awarded for pain and suffering undergone. Taking into account the nature and period of treatment Rs.15,000/- was awarded for treatment expenses. For loss of enjoyment of amenities of life, Rs.15,000/- was awarded. Another sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded on other eligible counts. Thus, total amount of Rs.1,48,000/- was awarded. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that M.A.C.A. No.948 of 2006 -: 3 :- compensation awarded is low. According to the counsel, compensation ought to have been awarded for disfigurement and consequent loss of eye sight particularly when the appellant is a girl and marriage prospects are affected. Further contention is that the evidence adduced which Tribunal accepted indicate that on account of the injuries suffered, appellant who was studying in the 10th standard could pass the SSLC examination after going for private studies only in the year, 1998. Therefore she lost 4 years but that was not compensated. Counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair. 6. So far as the claim for disfigurement and loss of marriage prospects is concerned, we notice from the application for compensation that Rs.1,00,000/- was claimed as compensation for disfigurement and loss of eye sight. Though there is no specific mention of marriage prospects being affected, that is something which this Court can notice considering the fact that the appellant lost vision of eye upto 30%. That certainly is going to affect her future marriage prospects. Loss of eye sight will also affect her cosmetic appearance apart from the disability she suffers. Considering these aspects and also taking into account the age of the appellant (15 years) at the time M.A.C.A. No.948 of 2006 -: 4 :- of accident, we are inclined to think that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for loss of disfigurement and marriage prospects which, in the facts and circumstances of the case we fix as Rs.50,000/-. 7. It is in evidence and the Tribunal also observed that appellant was studying in 10th standard at the time of accident but she could successfully complete the SSLC examination only in the year 1998 resulting in loss of 4 years of her academic career, which would necessarily prolong the possibility of her getting a job for 4 years. Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for that loss. For the purpose of assessing compensation for disability, Tribunal fixed Rs.15,000/- as the notional annual income. However, for the purpose of awarding compensation for loss of studies, we fix the loss at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per year and for a period of 4 years, the loss comes to Rs.20,000/-. Appellant is entitled to get that amount. 8. Though learned counsel for appellant contended that compensation awarded on other counts are also low, we find that the Tribunal has accepted Exhibit C1 and awarded compensation for disability and loss of earning power. Compensation awarded on other counts are also just and fair. No interference is required on those M.A.C.A. No.948 of 2006 -: 5 :- counts. Thus additional compensation payable to the appellant is Rs.70,000/- which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. Appellant is allowed to realise Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) as additional compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal , with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation from respondents 1 and 2, jointly and severally. Second respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit that amount. On deposit appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv