IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 1848 of 2007(A) ------------------------ OPMV.694/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- KUNHUMUHAMMED,S/O.ANNAN VEERAN, KANHIRAPPILAN HOUSE,RIPPON-PUDUKKAD, RIPPON POST, MOOPAINAD AMSOM, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 5 ------------------------------ 1. THE M.D.BHARATHIYAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD, OOTTY,TAMIL NADU. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COL LTD OOTTY. ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN FOR R1 ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON 10/06/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 1848 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the ..th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph Francis, J. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 694 of 1999 on the file of the M.A.C.T. Wayanad. Respondents 1 and 2 are respondents 2 and 5 in that Original Petition, which was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The allegation is that, on 9.7.1995 at about 12.30 p.m. while the petitioner was travelling in a bus bearing No. TCB 1896 from Gudaloor to Pandaloor, the bus hit against a lorry which was parked negligently on the left side of a curve, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the bus driver and the lorry driver. The first respondent was the driver of the bus and the third respondent was the driver of the lorry. The second respondent was the owner of the bus and the 4th respondent was M.A.C.A.No. 1847 of 2007 2 the owner of the lorry. The fifth respondent was the Insurance Company. 3. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.73,200/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till date of payment from respondents 1 and 5 equally. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant/ petitioner has filed this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under various heads are meager and not proportionate to the injury and the loss suffered by the appellant. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal awarded reasonable amount as compensation. 6. The Medical Certificates produced in this case shows that due to the accident the appellant sustained split compound fracture right lateral condyle of tibia with comminuted fracture upper third of right tibia and he was treated in Al Shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna M.A.C.A.No. 1847 of 2007 3 from 9.7.95 to 2.8.95 ad again from 8.9.05 to 22.8.1995 for non-union of comminuted fracture upper third of right tibia with muscle interposition. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for pain and sufferings. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that considering the nature of the injuries and the prolonged treatment, the Tribunal ought to have awarded some more amount towards compensation for pain and sufferings. Considering the nature of the injuries and prolonged treatment, we are of the view that Rs.5,000/- more is to be awarded towards compensation for pain and sufferings. 8. Ext.C1 is the disability certificates issued by the Medical Board, Wayanad, stating that due to the injury the appellant sustained an over all disability of 10% The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2,100/- p.m. and applying the multiplier of 15, awarded a sum of Rs.37,800/- as compensation for disability. Since there is no reliable evidence to prove the monthly income of the appellant, we are of the view that the monthly income taken as M.A.C.A.No. 1847 of 2007 4 Rs.2,100/- is reasonable and the compensation awarded towards disability is justified. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no amount is awarded towards compensation for loss of amenities. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that Rs.10,000/- can be awarded towards loss of amenities in life. The Tribunal has awarded only interest at the rate of 6% p.a. As regard the rate of interest, the decision of the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v.. Rajapriya ((2005) ACJ 1141 (SC)) is to the effect that 7.5% interest can be granted. In view of that decision, we are of the view that 6% interest is to be enhanced to 75% p.a. The compensation awarded under other heads are reasonable. Therefore, in total, the appellant is entitled to get Rs.15,000/- as additional compensation with 7.5% interest from the date of the petition till date of realisation. Interest at that rate is to be granted to the compensation already awarded. 10. This appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.15,000/- as additional compensation together with M.A.C.A.No. 1847 of 2007 5 interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the respondents in this appeal. The appellant is also allowed to get interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. on the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm