IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 MACA.No. 1211 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.1302/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS: ------------------------- 1. LEELA, W/O. RAJAN, VENMAYIL HOUSE, EAST KOMBARA, P.O. IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. BIJURAJ, S/O. RAJAN, VENMAYIL HOUSE, EAST KOMBARA, P.O. IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. BINURAJ, S/O. RAJAN, VENMAYIL HOUSE, EAST KOMBARA, P.O. IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DIST. 4. BIPINRAJ, S/O. RAJAN, VENMAYIL HOUSE, EAST KOMBARA, P.O. IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. BINIRAJ, S/O. RAJAN, VENMAYIL HOUSE, EAST KOMBARA, P.O. IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.VIMAL KUMAR.A.V. SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JILSON, S/O. JOSE, EDATHIRINJIKKARAN HOUSE, TANA IRINJALAKUDA P.O., THIRSSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MALIEKAL BUILDINGS P.B.NO.70, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. BINDU, D/O. RAJAN, W/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, MADRAS ARBS SHOP NO.7, OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION, JAMMU TAVI, JAMMU KASHMIR. ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1211 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: MAY 18, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimants in OP(MV) 1302/1999 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated July 26, 2005 awarding a compensation of Rs.70,799/- for the loss caused to the deceased 1st claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: The deceased 1st claimant was aged 52 and used to earn Rs.3000/- per month as a mechanic, according to the claimants. The deceased 1st claimant was pillion riding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8/L 8550 ridden by the 1st respondent along Thrissur - Irinjalakuda public road on March 6, 1999 at about 3 p.m. When he reached in front of Grant Automobiles, Irinjalakuda, due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, it went over a metal heap and overturned. The deceased 1st claimant sustained serious injuries. First respondent as the owner-cum-rider and second respondent as the insurer of the offending motorcycle are jointly and severally liable M.A.C.A. 1211 of 2006 2 to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. Respondent No.1/first claimant died during the pendency of the O.P. Therefore his legal heirs are impleaded as supplementary claimants 2 to 6 and additional respondent No.3 in the O.P. 4. Respondent No. 1, the owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle remained absent and was set ex parte by the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent, insurer of the offending motorcycle, filed a written statement admitting the policy. Additional respondent No.3 filed a written statement supporting the petitioners. 5. PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. On the side of the contesting 2nd respondent Ext.B1, copy of the insurance policy, was marked. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.70,799/- for the loss caused to the deceased 1st claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. Claimants 2 to 6 have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Heard the counsel for the appellants/claimants and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 7. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st M.A.C.A. 1211 of 2006 3 respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled to any enhancement of compensation. 8. Counsel for the claimant argued that the deceased 1st claimant died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident and therefore compensation has to be granted for the loss caused to the claimants on account of the death of the 1st claimant. We are unable to agree. The accident occurred on March 6, 1999 and the deceased died on January 3, 2000. There is nothing to show that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore the Tribunal is perfectly justified in holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation only for the injuries sustained by the deceased 1st claimant in the accident. 9. The next question for consideration is, whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation? If so, what is the quantum? The deceased 1st claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed from Ext.A6, copy of the wound certificate and Ext.A7 discharge summary:- “cerebral haematoma, head injury, abrasion of the scalp above right eyebrow and other bodily injuries.” He was admitted in the hospital on March 6, 1999 and was discharged M.A.C.A. 1211 of 2006 4 on March 26, 1999. Ext.A9 CT scan report shows that the 1st claimant has sustained hydrocephalus with asymmetric dilatation of lateral ventricles. Ext.A10 another CT scan report shows that the claimant sustained hypo brainstem due to edoema and large bitemperoparietal and left frontal haematoma with intraventricular extension of bleed. 10. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.70,799/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Extra nourishment and bystander's expenses - Rs.3,600/- transportation to hospital - 1,000/- Loss of earning for 6 months @ Rs.1500/- p.m. - 9,000/- pain and suffering - 15,000/- Loss of amenities - 5,000/- medical expenses - 37,199 11. The Counsel for the appellants/claimants sought enhancement of the compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities/enjoyment of life. Counsel for the claimants pointed out that no compensation was awarded for shortened expectations in life. 12. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased 1st claimant as Rs.1500/- which appears to be very low. According to PW.1/3rd claimant, deceased 1st claimant was working as a mechanic. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that his monthly M.A.C.A. 1211 of 2006 5 income can be reasonably estimated as Rs.3000/-. Therefore towards loss of earnings for six months, the claimants are entitled to Rs.18,000/- (3000 x 6). Thus, on this count the claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.9,000/-. 13. For the pain and suffering endured by the deceased 1st claimant, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased 1st claimant and the fact that he died subsequently, we feel that a compensation of Rs.25,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 14. For the loss of amenities/enjoyment of life, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.5000/- which is quite inadequate. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased 1st claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 15. There is another aspect in this case. The accident occurred on March 6, 1999 and the deceased first claimant died on January 3, 2000. The injuries sustained by him must have quickened his death. Therefore we feel that for the shortened expectations of life a compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable. 16. Thus the claimants are entitled to an additional M.A.C.A. 1211 of 2006 6 compensation of Rs.54,000/-. They are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 2nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimants. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-