IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 281 of 2007(G) OPMV.827/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- O. ARUMUGHAN, S/O. SAMI, O.A.COTTAGE, AZHINILAM POST, AZHINILAM AMSOM AND DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. MR.R.SUDHISSH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. M. ABDUL RAZAK, S/O. MUHAMMED, CHERUPURATH HOUSE, THURAKKAL POST, MALAPPURAM. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM. R2 BY ADV. MR.A.R.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No. 281 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of NOVEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R.RAMAN, J 1. Appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 827/1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The appellant suffered injuries in a motor accident, while he was coming from Ramanattukara, a car owned and driven by the first respondent hit the appellant from behind and he fell over the bonnet of the car and sustained injuries. An amount Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees two lakh fifty thousand only) was the claim compensation. 2. No oral evidence was adduced. Ext.A1 to A4 were produced. Ext.A1 is the FIR registering a crime under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), against the car driver. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part M.A.C.A. No. 281 of 2007 2 of the car driver. Ext.A2 is the copy of the Wound Certificate which shows that the petitioner had suffered fracture in the left tibia and contusion below left knee. Ext.A3 is the Disability Certificate said to be issued by the Doctor who treated the injured, even though the Doctor was not examined. In such circumstances, the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards disability. Regarding the treatment undergone, no documents were produced, neither the case sheets nor the medical bills. But, on consideration of the nature of the injuries sustained, after seeing the claimant who was present in the court, and taking note of the fact that there was a fracture on the left tibia, it was presumed that if he was hospitalised, he would require atleast one month's time for restoration of his normal health. No evidence was adduced, to show that there was any loss of estate. But still one month's time was taken as the period which he did not have attended to normal work. Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of M.A.C.A. No. 281 of 2007 3 Rs.8,500/-. In that, an amount of Rs.1,000/- was awarded for loss of income, Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.500/- towards transportation charges and Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffering. 3. Counsel appearing for the appellant strongly contended before us that the medical certificate showing a disability of 20%ought to have been accepted by the court below. Having due regard to the nature of the injuries suffered, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, insurance company, that the fracture is only to the tibia and not to fibula and therefore, there is no disability, having suffered by the injured. In the absence of any expert evidence, there is hardly any reason to sustain the plea of the appellant in this regard. 4. However, we find that the amount awarded under the head love and affection is too low. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered, three months could be taken as a period, during which injured would have suffered by M.A.C.A. No. 281 of 2007 4 loss of income, the notional income fixed at Rs.1,000/- is too low and hence we increase the same to Rs.2,000/-. On recalculation, we find that the injured is entitled for a further amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income. Towards pain and suffering, only Rs.6,000/- was awarded and we award a further amount of Rs.4,000/-. For loss of amenity, no compensation was awarded and hence an amount of Rs.5,000/- is now awarded. Thus the claimant is entitled for a further of Rs.14,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded. We also noted that interest at the rate of 6% only is awarded and normally it is 7% per annum. The compensation already awarded by the Tribunal and the additional compensation now awarded by this Court will carry an interest @7% per annum, from the date of the petition till payment. 4. Appeal is allowed and part. Though the first respondent is not served, the coverage being admitted by the Insurance Company in the absence of the first M.A.C.A. No. 281 of 2007 5 respondent, does not stand in the way of considering this appeal for enhancement, since the ultimate law is to indemnify the owner of the Insurance Company. Counsel would file a Memorandum deleting the first respondent as a party, today itself. 5. The Insurance Company will satisfy the award, as modified by this Court, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE nl