IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 273 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.1402/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- NAYATTIL MOHAMMED, S/O. HASSANKUTTY, PARAMBIL PADI, VENGARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. P.K. HAMEEDALI, S/O. MOHAMMED MASTER PANDAKKAL HOUSE, EDARIKODE P.O. 2. KUNHI MOHAMMED KUTTY, S/O. KUNHAMMED, VALANCHERI HOUSE, KURUKA P.O. 3. NAGARAJ, S/O. PALANI SAMY, ACC CEMENTS, MADHUKARA, GANDHI NAGAR, COIMBATORE. 4. K. MAIN, S/O. ABDUL SHUKOOR, BIG BAZAR, PALGHAT. 5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., MANJERI. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No.273 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal, the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1402/2000 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated September 14, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs .97,522/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injury sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts in brief are these : On March 23, 1996 at about 10.00 a.m. the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing Reg. No.KL- 10/C-5238 driven by the first respondent from Kakkad to Changaramkulam . When the bus reached at Annakkambatta while trying to overtake an auto rickshaw it dashed against a lorry bearing Reg.No.KLL 8484 driven by the third respondent. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. First respondent as the driver of the bus, second respondent as the owner of MACA.No.273/05 Page numbers the bus, third respondent as the driver of the lorry, fourth respondent as the owner of the lorry and fifth respondent as the insurer of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 were absent and were set ex parte before the Tribunal. Fifth respondent, the insurer of both the vehicles, filed a written statement admitting the policy of the bus, but denying the policy of the lorry. The claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 series were marked on the side of the claimant. The certificate of disability was marked as Ext.X1. No evidence was adduced by the contesting fifth respondent. 4. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.97,522/- against respondents 1, 2 and 5. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for appellant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. MACA.No.273/05 Page numbers 6. The claimant sustained a crush injury on the right elbow downwards and below elbow amputation was done as revealed from Ext.A2, the copy of wound certificate , Ext.A3, copy of the discharge certificate and Ext.X1, certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board. The claimant has 40% disability as revealed from Ext.X1. He was aged 60 at the time of the accident. The Tribunal took his annual income as Rs. 15,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 18 and awarded the compensation as follows : Loss of earning -Rs. 15,000/- Transport to hospital -Rs. 500/- Extra nourishment -Rs. 1,700/- Bystanders expenses -Rs. 1,700/- Medical expenses -Rs. 10,622/- Pain and suffering -Rs. 20,000/- Disability -Rs. 48,000/- ----------------- Rs.97,522/- ========= 7. Counsel for the appellant mainly disputed the quantum of compensation awarded for the disability caused. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 48,000/- for the disability caused by fixing his annual income as Rs. 15000/- and adopting a multiplier of 18 and taking his percentage of disability as 40% which appears to be reasonable. MACA.No.273/05 Page numbers 8. The counsel for appellant argued that the Tribunal did not award any compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. He also disputed the quantum of compensation awarded for Bystander's expenses, for transport to hospital and for extra nourishment. We find force in the above contention. 9. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The right hand of the claimant was amputated. Therefore, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 10. For bystander's expenses, Rs. 1700/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 3000/- would be reasonable on this count. 11. For transport cost, only Rs. 500/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Having regard to the nature of the injury and the period of treatment the claimant has undergone, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- would be adequate on this count. 12. For extra nourishment, Rs. 1,700/- was awarded by the MACA.No.273/05 Page numbers Tribunal which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- would be reasonable under this head. 13. Thus, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 22,100/-. He is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The fifth respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle, shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment before the Tribunal with notice to the claimant. The Appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.273/05 Page numbers