IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 912 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.1039/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS, UNSOUND MIND, S/O.KUTTAN, VALIYATHUVEEDU, EDAKKUNNU, KARIPPALA, PADUVAPURAM P.O. REP. BY HIS WIFE MARY THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.SONIYA.M SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP. --------------------------------- 1. ALIYAR, S/O.KUNJUMOOSA, ULLATTUKUDY HOUSE, VENGOLA, ARACKAPPADY. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (RURAL), ALUVA. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., ALUVA 1. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN FOR R2 & R3 SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` M.A.C.A. No. 912 OF 2005 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Joseph, J. Appellant is the petitioner in a petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He suffered injury in a motor vehicle accident on 31.5.1998. According to him, he was working in a quarry. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,18,980/- of which 10% has been deducted on the ground that the accident happened because of the negligence of the appellant. It was found that the appellant had consumed alcohol and thereby he was negligent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. According to the appellant, the income taken as Rs.1,800/- is inadequate. According to him, the appellant was a quarry worker and the income should have been taken as Rs.3,000/-. It is further pointed out that the appellant had developed a psychiatric problem and he is not in a position to do any work. The claim for permanent disability of the appellant should have been accepted and MACA.912/05 : 2 : compensation should have been awarded on that basis, it is contended. The Doctor, who has issued Ext.A9 disability certificate, was examined as PW3 and he has given evidence. The disability has been assessed at 12% and Rs.38,880/- has been awarded. The petitioner is also awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings. He is also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards bystander's expenses and extra nourishment. Rs.21,000/- is seen awarded towards medical expenses. Apart from this, Rs.10,800/- is awarded towards loss of earning for six months. He is also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities. In fact, learned counsel for the Insurance company would submit that the Tribunal has given very high amount as it contemplates revision of the compensation on the ground of the finding of the negligence on the part of the claimant. The evidence of PW3 would reveal that he has stated as follows. “.... He needs medication in future and the same is certified by the document which already marked as Ext.A6.” He would also say that the patient is not able to do any kind of work due to the related problems of post head injury. In further MACA.912/05 : 3 : cross-examination, he said that he cannot deny whether the patient had similar illness and behavioral changes even before the accident. It is also stated by him that he did not assess the disability whether a continuous medication or not, he cannot do any work. 3. As far as the income is concerned, admittedly the accident was took place in 1998. There is no evidence of appellant in this regard. But, we would see that there is evidence for the fact that the appellant having regard to the injury (head injury) would be needing treatment in the future. When an award is passed, it is the duty of the court to provide for expenses which are likely to arise from out of the accident in the future also as the law contemplates. Therefore, we feel that the appellant must be compensated for the expenses which are likely to be incurred by him on account of the accident in the future. We would think that after deducting a sum representing 10% on account of this context the appellant should be awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- which will bear 7.5% interest. We feel that having regard to the totality of facts, the appellant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- more as a lump sum MACA.912/05 : 4 : enhancement and it will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% from today till the date of payment. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and an award is passed against the respondents for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as enhanced compensation which will carry 7.5% interest from today till the date of payment. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) aks