IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1218 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1840/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------- JOLLY ABRAHAM S/O. ABRAHAM, AGED 36 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT MUKALEL HOUSE, THATTEKKADU, PALAMATTOM, KEERAMPARA VILLAGE (H.NO.12.12.90/1, ARAB MOHALLA, RAICHUR) BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. MR.MD-AFSARMIYA KHAJA HUSSAIN, M.NO.2.6.106/2, GALIBNAGAR, RAICHUR, KARNATAKA. 2. MANZOOR AHMED, H.NO.2.5.22, KORTTOLOR, RAICHUR, D.L.NO.260/91-92, AUTHORISATION TO DRIVE TRANSPORT VEHICLE NO.354/93-94. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RAICHUR, KARNATAKA STATE PIN - 584 101. ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1218 of 2004 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Thomas P.Joseph, J. Appellant while riding a scooter along Ashapur road at Raichur In Karnataka State on 23.7.2000 was hit by a lorry driven by the second respondent. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the second respondent and that he sustained grievous injuries, appellant claimed compensation from the respondents in O.P.(MV) No.1840 of 2000 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the second respondent, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation, made respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable and directed the third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle to deposit the amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Claiming that he is entitled to get further compensation, appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Heard. 3. Finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the respondent having become final, what MACA No.1218/2004 2 remained for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to get any further amount as compensation. 4. Appellant was aged 32 years at the time of accident. He claimed that he was engaged in the business of thread rubber and was earning at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. In the absence of acceptable evidence, learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.1,500/-. Considering the nature of business, the age of the appellant and also taking into account the wages paid to daily labourers during the relevant time, we are inclined to think that the monthly income fixed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the monthly income of the appellant is fixed as Rs.3,000/-. 5. In Ext.A5, it is stated that the appellant sustained the following injuries:- “Lacerated wound over the scalp on right side of the scalp measuring 8-10 cms x 4 cms deep. Bleeding positive” Ext.A6 is the discharge summery issued from Appolo Hospital, Hydrabad. Ext.A6 shows inpatient treatment of the appellant in that hospital from 24.7.2000 onwards. Appellant was in semi-coma stage at the time of admission in that hospital. He suffered fracture of the skull. CT scan revealed extra dural haematoma craniotomy was done. Appellant was discharged on 3.8.2000. 6. Learned Tribunal found that appellant could not have worked for three months and suffered loss. Rs.4,500/- was awarded taking the monthly MACA No.1218/2004 3 income as Rs.1,500/- which we have fixed as Rs.3,000/- per month. Accordingly, compensation payable for loss of earning for three months comes to Rs.9,000/-. Less the sum of Rs.4,500/- already awarded by the Tribunal, appellant is entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.4,500/- on that count. Learned Tribunal has noted in paragraph 13 of the award that there was bone loss for the appellant at the cite of fracture. There was also disfigurement as noticed by the Tribunal. Rs.5,000/- was awarded as compensation (for disfigurement). It is contended by the learned counsel for appellant that disability of the appellant was not considered and no compensation was awarded on that count. 7. Appellant did not adduce sufficient evidence to show that he suffered any disability on account of the injuries but the appellant suffered communited fracture of right frontal and partial bones for which craniotomy had to be done. It is possible that on account of that fracture, appellant has some discomfort which would affect his capacity to earn. Considering the nature of the injuries and its consequence, we are inclined to award Rs.7,000/- as compensation for discomfort and inconvenience arising from the fracture. 8. Though it is contended by the learned counsel that compensation awarded on other counts is also meager, considering the total amount found due to the appellant we are not inclined to think that any enhancement on other counts is required. Thus, the additional compensation to which the appellant is entitled comes to Rs.11,500/-. Appellant will get interest on that amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum. MACA No.1218/2004 4 Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. Over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellant is allowed to recover Rs.11,500/- ((Rupees eleven thousand and five hundred only) as additional compensation with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application till realization from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the said amount in the Tribunal within one month from this day. On such deposit, appellant is allowed to withdraw that amount. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks