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 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 MACA.No. 858 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.3348/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- SULEKHA, W/O. SREEDHARAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, P.O. PUTHUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. JAICOB, S/O. DEVASSY, CHELAKKAT HOUSE, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JOY, S/O. DEVASSY, THONDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR DIST. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R2 SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.858 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.3348/2000 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated October 7, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs. 26,904/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these : The claimant is a lady Upper Primary School Assistant in M.K.M.C.U.P school, Nenmanikara earning Rs.5,895/- as salary. She was aged 40 at the time of the accident. On August 3, 2000 at about 9.30 a.m., while the claimant was walking along the western side of Thrissur-Ernakulam Public road at Ollur from north to south, she was knocked down by a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/M 9972 ridden by the second respondent. The claimant sustained serious injuries. MACA.No.858/2004 2 According to the claimant, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motor cycle by second respondent. First respondent as the owner, second respondent as the rider and third respondent as the insurer of the offending motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,03,500/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and rider of the offending motor cycle remained absent and were set ex parte by the Tribunal. The third respondent the insurer of the offending motor cycle filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. Exts.A1 to A13 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 riding of the offending motor cycle by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 26,904/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. MACA.No.858/2004 3 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. 7. The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed from Ext.A2, the copy of the wound certificate. 1. Lacerated wound over the left parietal eminence. 2. Abrasion on the left elbow. Ext.A6 is the discharge summary issued from the hospital. 8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.26,904/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under : Loss of leave - Rs. 2,704/- Transportation expenses - Rs. 500/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 400/- Damages to clothing - Rs. 300/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 6,000/- MACA.No.858/2004 4 Treatment expenses - Rs. 8,000/- Disability - Rs. 9,000/- 9. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the disability caused and on other heads. 10. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained and the period of treatment the claimant has undergone, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. It follows that the claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. That being so, the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.858/2004 5