IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 MACA.No. 780 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.468/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- MARIYA, W/O.SAIDALI, AGED 32 YEARS, KOLAMULLI VEEDU, VARODE POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6. ---------------------------------- 1. M.V.HYDERALI, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN, MADATHIL VEETTIL HOUSE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THANKAMANI, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, KANNATHU HOUSE, THOTTAKKARA POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO,LTD., PALAKKAD. 4. RADHAKRISHNAN.K. AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN KONDANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, ALIPARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DIST. 5. MOHANAN, S/O.KUTTIKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, POTHIRATHU VEEDU, CHETHALLOOR. 6. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., CITY BRANCH RAMEEZ ARCADE, C.H.FLY OVER JUNCTION, CHEROOTTY ROAD, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 & 6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.780 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.468/2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam. In this appeal she challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated November 19, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.16,800/- for the loss caused to her on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident. She sustained the following injuries in that accident that occurred on January 27, 1999 at about 3.15 p.m. : Contusion ( L) knee and ( L) hip. CT Scan of the head showed brain oedema. 2. The accident happened while the claimant was travelling in the bus bearing Reg.No.KL-10 D/6325 driven by the second respondent from Cherplasserry to Varode, Ottapalam. When he reached at Thrikkaderi Nairpadi, the bus collided head on with a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL- 10 D/4523 driven by the fifth respondent. Alleging negligence against the MACA.No.780/2004 2 drivers of both the vehicles, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 are the owner, driver and insurer of the bus involved in the accident. Respondents 4 to 6 are the owner, driver and insurer of the mini lorry involved in the accident. Respondents 1 and 2 remained absent before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3, the insurer of the bus filed a written statement admitting the policy of the bus. Respondents 4 and 5 filed written statements admitting the accident, but attributed negligence to second respondent. Respondent No.6, the insurer of the mini lorry filed a written statement admitting the policy of the mini lorry. 4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the contesting respondents. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the drivers and awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till MACA.No.780/2004 3 realisation and a cost of Rs.450/-. 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 drivers of both the vehicles 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 Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,800/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: Pain and suffering - Rs.3,500/- Bystander expenses - Rs.1,300/- Medical bills - Rs.5,000/- Loss of amenities - Rs.4,000/- Loss of income - Rs.2,000/- Transportation - Rs.1,000/- 8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the pain and suffering endured and for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. He pointed out that no compensation MACA.No.780/2004 4 was awarded for the disability caused. 9. Ext.A9 is the disability certificate issued by the Neuro Surgeon attached to Moulana Hospital, Perinthalmanna. In Ext.A9, it is stated that claimant conscious, no focal neurological deficits, extensive myalgia c/o headache and vomiting. CT scan showed head-mild brain edema. She had pain ( L) hip and knee. She had complaints of headache and occasional vertigo which is due to post-traumatic sequale requires reassurance and symptomatic treatment. Her disability was assessed at 5% in Ext.A9 certificate. Taking into consideration the disabilities caused to her, we feel that the claimant is entitled to compensation for the disability caused. In our view, the percentage of disability of 5% assessed by the doctor in Ext.A9 can be accepted. 10. The claimant was a coolie earning Rs.3,000/- per month, according to her. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that her monthly income can be reasonably fixed at 2,500/-.A multiplier of 16 would be reasonable in this case as she was aged only 29 at the time of accident. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 24,000/- ( 5% x 2500 x 12 x 16). MACA.No.780/2004 5 11. The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and Rs.3,500/- for pain and suffering endured. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs.7,500/- would be reasonable under each count i.e., for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and for pain and suffering endured. 12. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- for loss of income. The nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant shows that she must have been disabled atleast for three months. As we have fixed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.2,500/- she is entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,500/- towards loss of income. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. 13. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 37,000/-. She is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. Respondents 3 and 6 being the insurers of the offending vehicles shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the MACA.No.780/2004 6 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. Sd/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE Sd/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. True copy P.A. to Judge