IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 1265 of 2000(B) ----------------------- ( OPMV.1068/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM) APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ------------------------------------- SANJU THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS THOMAS, T.C.2/3024, PANACHAMOODU LANE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP ADV. SMT. BINDU SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. M. SIRAJUDEEN, S/O. MOHAMMED KHASIM, SULFI COTTAGE, MARKET JUNCTION, VITHURA P.O. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN, SC. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. ................................................................................... M.F.A.NO. 1265 OF 2000 ................................................................................... Dated this the 18th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Koshy, J.: The appellant/claimant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident occurred on 16.10.1993. While he was riding his motor cycle, it hit with a lorry driven by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent, Insurance Company. The Tribunal, after considering Ext.A2, report of A.M.V.I. and Ext.A4 Scene Mahazar found that the right side of the lorry was hit by the motor cycle and the motor cycle was coming on the wrong side and therefore both drivers were negligent. However, since the motor cycle is a small vehicle, the Tribunal limited the extent of contribution of the claimant to the accident at 25%. It is true that only the first respondent-lorry driver was charge sheeted. But at the same time, the description in the Scene Mahazar shows that the motor cycle hit on the right side of the lorry when the motor cycle was coming from the opposite direction. Hit on the right side of the lorry shows that the appellant was riding the motor cycle in a rash manner. But lorry was also coming in a high speed. In the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal to limit the extent of contribution to 25% does not call for any interference. 2. With regard to the quantum of compensation granted, it has to be taken into account that the appellant was 19 years at the time of accident and M.F.A.NO. 1265 OF 2000 2 that he was an engineering student. The Tribunal accepted the medical certificates produced by the appellant/claimant. For assessing the compensation, the Tribunal has taken Rs. 2000/- p.m. as average income of the claimant and granted Rs.1000/- towards transport to hospital, Rs.2500/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.500/- towards damage to clothing and Rs.1500/- towards by-stander's expenses and Rs.10000/- towards medical expenses. 3. The injuries sustained by the claimant are the following: “1) Fracture skull with lacerated wound 5 x 1 x 2 cm suterated 2) Fracture of base of skull 3) Fracture sygoma right with lacerated wound 4 x 2 x 1 c.m. 4) Fracture maxilla on both side of face 5) Fracture mandible right suboondylar. 6) Fracture mandible left paramedia. 7) Fracture nasal bone 8) Fracture trimolar right with depression. 9) Fracture right orbit. 10) Fracture right radious with nailing of radious immobilised with plaster. 11) Removal of lower end of ulna 12) Multiple laceration right knee with bone exposed right leg was immobilised with plaster 13) Multiple contused abrasion right leg. 14) Lacerated wound right and left tongue which sutures 15) injury on the right thigh with permanent mark 16) Injury on the right ankle M.F.A.NO. 1265 OF 2000 3 17) Injury in the right shoulder 18) Face is disfigured. The above injuries were proved by the medical records, Exts. A6 to A10. The appellant/claimant had produced the actual medical bills amounting to Rs.11,469/-. The Tribunal had granted only Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses. There would be many expenses not covered by the medical bills. In the above circumstances, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, we grant Rs.5000/- as additional compensation. 4. The following disabilities were noted by the Department of Oral and Maxilio Facial Surgery, Medical College, Trivandrum. They are: “1. Facial disfigurement and chewing limitation.(Partial permanent disability of 5%. 2. Unsightedly scar on the right side of middle of forehead and left lower part of cheek. (Partial permanent disability of 5% considering the psycologic impact to such a young patient) 3. Fracture of one teeth -21-1% ( One percent)” The claimant had undergone for maxilio facial surgery. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for loss of amenities, loss of studies and towards dis- figuration. In these circumstances, for dis-figuration, loss of amenities and loss of studies, we award Rs.7,000/- more as additional compensation. Hence, total additional compensation of Rs.12,000/- is granted to the claimant. Since we confirm the findings of the Tribunal limiting the extent of contribution of the M.F.A.NO. 1265 OF 2000 4 appellant/claimant to the accident at 25%, the actual additional compensation payable to the claimant is Rs.9,000/-. Over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the additional compensation granted by this Court should be deposited by the second respondent-Insurance Company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, the appellant/claimant is allowed to withdraw the same. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk M.F.A.NO. 1265 OF 2000 5 J.B. KOSHY & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. ........................................................ M.F.A. No. 1265 OF 2000 ......................................................... Dated this the 18th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T