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 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 1698 of 2006(D) ----------------------- OPMV.294/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- LATHA BABU, AGED 27 YEARS, KARIPPATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KUNCHITHANNI P.O., ADIMALY. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------- 1. RAGHAVAN, VELIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.161/III, VELLATHOOVAL, IDUKKI. 2. V.R.SHAJI, VELIKUZHIYIL, 20 ACRE KARA, SISONVELLEY VILLAGE. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ALUVA. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1698 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: AUGUST 18, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant, a lady aged 27 at the time of the accident, is the claimant in OP(MV) 294/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. She sustained the following injuries in a motor accident that occurred on March 12, 2003. 1. pain and tenderness over the middle 1/3 of left arm. 2. closed of lacerated wound over the dorsum of hand 3 x 2 cm. 3. Tenderness over the paravertebral region of LS. 4. fracture of shaft of left humerus middle 1/3. 5. fracture of LS of posterior column. The accident happened while the jeep bearing Regn.No.KL 5B.3404 in which the petitioner and others were travelling capsized at about 11.15 p.m. at Njeerippalam near N.R.City into a ravine on the side of the road. Alleging negligence against the 2nd respondent, driver of the jeep, the claimant filed the OP under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.2,80,000/-. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and driver of the offending jeep, remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3, insurer of the jeep, filed a written statement admitting the policy, but contended that the 2nd respondent had no driving licence at the time of the accident. 3. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A22 were M.A.C.A. 1698 of 2006 2 marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. The driving licence of the 2nd respondent was marked as Ext.B1 and copy of the policy was marked as Ext.B2 on the side of the respondents. This OP was jointly tried along with other OPs. filed by the other injured persons in the accident and a common award was passed. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.65,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard counsel for the appellant/claimant and the Insurance Company. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd 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. 6. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: loss of earning Rs.10,000/- transportation 1,500/- treatment 14,700/- M.A.C.A. 1698 of 2006 3 bystander's expenses 2,000/- extra nourishment 2,000/- pain and suffering 20,000/- removal of implants 15,000/- 7. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for the disability caused, for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and on other heads. 8. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.2000/- and awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of earnings for five months. The claimant was a lady aged 27 at the time of the accident. Therefore we feel that her monthly income can be fixed at Rs.2500/- Thus for loss of earnings she is entitled to a compensation of Rs.12500/-. 9. No compensation was seen awarded for the disability caused to the claimant. The nature of the injuries sustained by her shows that she must have suffered some disability. The Tribunal noted that there was a lengthy scar on the petitioner's forearm and implants were still inside. Therefore for the disability caused, we feel that a compensation of Rs.25000/- would be reasonable. 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15000/- as compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and for the expenses for removal of the implants, which appears to be quite inadequate. Taking into account the nature of the injuries sustained, we feel that a M.A.C.A. 1698 of 2006 4 compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. 11. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.32500/-. She is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and for the enhanced compensation and proportionate cost. The 3rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt 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/-