IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1757 of 2005(G) ----------------------- OPMV.1247/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- K.R.ANILKUMAR, RESIDING AT KARADIYIL HOUSE, THRIKKOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. M.JOHNSON (PASTOR), CHURCH OF GOD OF INDIA, CHELLIZHUKKAM ROAD, YMCA LANE, KOTTAYAM-1. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1757 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)1247/02. The claimant while riding on a motor bike met with an accident as a result of a collision with another vehicle resulting in injuries to him. The Tribunal found that the claimant was negligent to a tune of Rs.40% and respondent driver was negligent to a tune of 60% thereafter fixed the compensation at Rs.21,639/- and granted Rs.12,983 after deducting 40% for the contributory negligence. It is against that decision the claimant has come in appeal. Learned counsel has contended that the finding on contributory negligence as well as the quantum requires interference. I had perused the award. The claimant was riding his bike from east to west and the accident has taken place in a junction. It is found that the accident had taken place about 2.78 metrs. towards west from the traffic island M.A.C.A. 1757 OF 2005 -:2:- and the road was having a width of 7.5 metrs. The Tribunal found that it was a try junction and the opposite vehicle was proceeding and the claimant was about to cross the traffic island. So it found that both had contributed to the accident and apportioned the negligence at 40% on the claimant and 60% on the other driver. From the materials available I find that no interference is required. So far as the quantum is concerned it is seen that the doctor had advised ordinary leave for 45 days and the certificate produced would reveal that he was on leave for 90 days. Considering the medical certificate as well as Ext.A9 it is safe to fix the loss of income for two months. Therefore I award Rs.5,305/- more under that head. When a person sustains a fracture on the spine certainly it will cause him loss of amenities for a considerable length of time and there will be also pain and sufferings and since he has to take a total bed rest which is the only method to cure such fractures. It would have affected his day-to-day activities in his life curtailing his entertainment as well and being a M.A.C.A. 1757 OF 2005 -:3:- person working in a newspaper it would have certainly deprived of his benefit of going around. So, taking into consideration these aspects I enhance the loss of amenities compensation by Rs.1,500/- and compensation for pain and sufferings by Rs.2,000/- thereby entitling the claimant for an additional compensation of Rs.8,805/- which is rounded to Rs.8,800/- of which 60% would come to Rs.5,280/-. Thus the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.5,280/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.5,280/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-