IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 379 of 2005(G) ---------------------- OPMV.291/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT ----------------------- VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT SREEMANGALAM, RADHAKRISHNA LANE, VAZHAYILA, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.K.G.RENGANATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE MANAGIND DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KALLINGAL PUTHEN VEEDU, NEDUMANGAD JUNCTION, NEDUMANGAD. ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R.1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 407 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NOs. 379 and 407 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. (MV)Nos.291/99 and 292/99 respectively. Petitioner in O.P. (MV)291/99 was a rider of a motorbike and an advocate by profession sustained injuries when a KSRTC bus near Kowdiar junction came from behind and hit on the bike resulting in injuries to the claimant and damages to the motorbike for which the other claim petition is filed. The Tribunal on a consideration of the materials awarded Rs.5,166/- to the claimant for personal injuries and awarded a sum of Rs.5,300/- towards damages sustained to the motorbike. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded both the claimants have come up in appeal. 2. In the personal injury clause it can be seen from the award that the claimant had sustained a lacerated wound on the medial aspect of the right foot measuring 3 x 2 x 1 M.A.C.A. Nos. 379 & 407 OF 2005 -:2:- cm. He had also tenderness on the right shin measuring 5 x 2 cms. Though no bony injury was found out it is clear from the documents that he was admitted in the outpatient department of the Government Hospital Peroorkada and in the Medical College Hospital. The wound was sutured and the petitioner was treated with antibiotics and analgesics. The claimant is an Advocate by profession and he was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident. When a person sustains injuries on the foot certainly it would have affected his mobility and when that wound is sutured he may not be able to ride a motorbike for some time. Similarly, the contusion on the shin also would have caused apprehension in him. The petitioner has only claimed an amount of Rs.3,500/- as the income per month which cannot be said to be on the higher side. Similarly being an Advocate by profession the damage to clothing awarded also appears to be inadequate. So taking into consideration these aspects and the fact that he would not have been in a position to attend the work properly for three to four weeks I am inclined to enhance the compensation by Rs.3,000/-. M.A.C.A. Nos. 379 & 407 OF 2005 -:3:- 3. The next question is regarding the damages. It can be seen from the award that the repairer of the bike namely Cheeran Automobiles has directly sent the bill to the Oriental Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.15,461.77 which represents Rs.1,300/- as labour charges and Rs.14,361/- as cost of spare parts. The Tribunal declined to grant it on the ground the A.M.V.I. Report pertaining to the motorbike does not show such type of damages. Explicitly we know that a motor vehicle inspector's report is mainly intended for the purpose of finding out whether there was any mechanical defect for the vehicle and in the process they note the other damages superficially and therefore one cannot hold that the mere non mentioning of some of the damages by the A.M.V.I would militate against the claimant's right. It is true that when a vehicle is hit and it sustains damages not only the parts which was hit would get damaged, the other portion too will get damaged if the impact is very serious. Therefore it was not correct on the part of the Tribunal to throw away the claim especially when it was supported by bills. Even if depreciation is granted for purchase of spareparts and the cost of labour charge is M.A.C.A. Nos. 379 & 407 OF 2005 -:4:- included there is nothing wrong in awarding an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- more towards the damages sustained to the vehicle. I am awarding enhanced compensation because the report is supported by bills, vouchers as well as survey report and one cannot hold that they are concocted documents for the purpose of preferring the claim. Therefore from these discussions the claimant in O.P. (MV)291/99 is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.3,000/- with 7.5% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the claimant in O.P.(MV) 292/99 is awarded an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- with 6% interest, being property damages, from the date of petition till realisation and the KSRTC represented by the first respondent is directed to pay the amount within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-