IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 690 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.1180/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ---------------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. JAISON, J.V.N. HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. T.B. SANKAR, SWATHI, XXVII/43, THEKKUMBHAGAM, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. 2. V.K.MADHUKUMAR, VETTA, KAKARIKONATHU HOUSE, MALAPPURAM. 3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. C.P. SASIKUMAR,S/O.KALYANIKUTTY AMMA C.P PANAMKETTY HOUSE, VEMMENAD POST,PAVARATTY,THRISSUR 5. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., L.M.S. COMPOUND, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R2 SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY FOR R2 SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASHROF FOR R2 SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH FOR R2 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R2 SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN FOR R5 SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER FOR R5 SRI.S.S.BALU FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.690 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1180/1999 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,72,290/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these : On April 27, 1998 while the claimant was pillion riding on the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/D.1141 along Aluva-Ernakulam National Highway, it dashed against the Maruthi car bearing Reg.No.KL-7/3472 driven by the second respondent. The claimant as well as his son sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by second respondent. First respondent as the owner, second M.A.C.A.No.690/05 2 respondent as the driver and third respondent as the insurer of the offending bus are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs. 3. Fourth respondent is the owner of the motor cycle and 5th respondent is its insurer. Only respondents 3 and 5, Insurance companies appeared before the Tribunal. Others remained absent. Respondents 3 and 5 filed separate written statement admitting the policy, but alleging negligence on the respective drivers. 4. This O.P.(MV) was jointly tried with O.P.(MV)No.1181/99 filed by the son of the claimant and a common award was passed. PWs 1 and 2 were examined on the side of the claimant and Exts.A1 to 18 were marked. No evidence was adduced by contesting respondents 3 and 5. 5. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,72,290/-. The claimant has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A.No.690/05 3 6. Heard the counsel for the claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Companies. 7. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second 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 ? 8. The claimant in this case is aged 30 and was working as an U.D.Clerk in Regional Transport Office, Nemom drawing a salary of Rs. 5500/- per month. Ext.A9 is the copy of the SSLC book. Ext.A3 is his salary certificate. The claimant sustained Type III B compound fracture of tibia and was treated with external fixation and bone grafting and inter nailing. Ext.A5 is the treatment certificate. Ext.A8, the disability certificate issued by PW2 shows that the fracture failed to united and subsequently it malunited and that he has ankylosis of the right knee and right ankle. He is assessed to have a disability of 16%. Taking into consideration all these facts, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,72,290/-. The break up of the award amount is M.A.C.A.No.690/05 4 as under : Loss of earning -Rs. 28,000/- Transportation -Rs. 20,000/- Medical expenses -Rs.1,80,000/- Extranourishment -Rs. 2,000/- Damage to clothing -Rs. 250/- Pain and suffering -Rs. 12,000/- Disability -Rs. 23,040/- Loss of amenities -Rs. 7,000/- ----------------- Total -Rs. 2,72,290/- ========== 9. The counsel for the appellant mainly argued that the Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 2000/- which is very low and that the Tribunal assessed the disability as 12% as against 16% disability certified by the doctor which is not correct. But taking into account the nature of the injury sustained and the period of treatment the claimant has undergone and the fact that the claimant is still employed, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as Rs. 23,040/- is reasonable for the disability caused. Regarding the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable. Therefore, we are not disturbing the same. In view of our above findings, we hold that the appeal is devoid M.A.C.A.No.690/05 5 of any merit and the same has to be dismissed. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. M.A.C.A.No.690/05 6