IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1940 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.1524/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------- BEENA, W/O.VARKEY, PAZHAMPILLIL HOUSE, KANINADU KARA, VADAVUKODE VILLAGE (BED RIDDEN), REP. BY HER HUSBAND VARKEY, S/O.SLEEBAKUNJU, PAZHAMPILLIL HOUSE, KANINADU KARA, VADAVUKODE VILLAGE AS NEXT FRIEND AND LEGAL GUARDIAN. BY ADV. SMT.ANNIE PAUL SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. P.V.GIRIJAN, S/O.VELAPPAN, ANUGRAHAM, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. JEESA, S/O.JOSE, PARACKAL HOUSE, THOLELY, AYIROORPADOM, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., THRIPPONITHURA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1940 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1524/2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. In this appeal, she challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated December 7, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.7,67,000/- for the loss caused to her on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident. 2. The accident happened on August 16, 2001 at about 10.45 a.m., while the claimant was standing in front of Marthoma Church, Kothamangalam, she was knocked down by the bus bearing Reg.No.KL-7K/88 driven by the second respondent. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending bus remained absent before the Tribunal. The third MACA.No.1940/2005 2 respondent, the insurer of the offending bus filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A27 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,67,000/- with interest @ 9% 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. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. 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. MACA.No.1940/2005 3 7. The break up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under : Medical bills - Rs. 1,32,000/- Future treatment - Rs. 19,500/- Bystander expenses - Rs. 12,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 50,000/- Disability - Rs.4,32,000/- Loss of amenities - Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of earning -Rs. 5,000/- Transportation - Rs. 1,000/- Damage to clothes - Rs. 500/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 15,000/- ---------------- Rs.7,67,000/- =========== 8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the disability caused and on other heads. 9. The claimant sustained the following injuries in the accident : Back pain and inability to move both lower limbs. Bleeding pelvis positive. BP unrecordable. USC indicated rupture of uterus with foetal death.Fracture of spine. CT scan showed fracture of pelvis and fracture of L1 spine with dislocation of D12 over LI, contusion spinal cord at D12-L1 level. Emergency laparotomy was done and taken out the demised foetus. Subtototal hysterectomy done. Repair of the anteriovaginal wall was done. Multiple MACA.No.1940/2005 4 blood transfusion were given. MRI of the thoracolumbar spine done on 6th day of admission. Injection methyl prednisolone was given in the first 24 hrs. Even in the 6th day after methyl prednisolone, the power of both lower limbs were zero and also MRI showed bad contusion or almost transcection at the level of D12 .LI. The relatives were explained about the very remote chance of the recovery of the paraplegia even with posterior fixation of the spine. D12-LI laminectomy and posterior fixation of the thoraco-lumbar spine was done post operative period was uneventful. Stitches were taken on the 10th day. Patient was made sitting with the help of thoraco- lumbar brace. Condition at discharge is recorded as follows : Patient is fully conscious, total paraplegia present. She is on indwelling Foley's Catheter. 10. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.2,000/- and percentage of disability as 100% and adopted a multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs. 4,32,000/- for the disability caused. The claimant was a degree holder of Bachelor of Commerce from Mahatma Gandhi University as evidenced by Ext.A21. According to her, she was employed as a Clerk under PW1, a contractor and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month. Ext.A2 is her salary certificate and Ext.A23 is her appointment order. She was aged only 26 at the time of MACA.No.1940/2005 5 the accident. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we feel that her monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.2,500/- The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 18 and the percentage of disability as 100% assessed by the Tribunal are not seriously challenged. Thus, calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,40,000/- ( 2500 x 12 x 18). Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,08,000/-. 11. The Tribunal awarded Rs.19,500/- for her future medical treatment. But the claimant is totally bed ridden and requires future treatment. Therefore, we feel that a compensation of Rs.50,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 12. The claimant was pregnant at the time of the accident. For the death of foetus, no compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. MACA.No.1940/2005 6 13. In the result, the appellant/claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,88,500/-. She is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The third 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 sv. MACA.No.1940/2005 7