IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 812 of 2008() -------------------------------------- OPMV.155/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S):PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- SHYNI T.GEORGE, W/O. JOBI, THUNDUMMEL HOUSE, KUMBLERI P.O., AMBALAVAYAL VILLAGE, S.BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. P.P.ANILKUMAR, S/O. CHOYIKUTTY, PAROPADY P.O., MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.812 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta in O.P.(MV)No.155 of 2002. The claimant, a 25 year old lady working in the Government Department sustained injuries in a road accident and she has been awarded a compensation of Rs.4,375/-. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. The two points raised in the appeal are (1) the Tribunal erred in deducting 50% of the compensation for non-impleadment of the private bus owner and driver and (2) the compensation awarded is inadequate. 2. The claimant was travelling in a K.S.R.T.C. bus and when it reached the place of accident it collided with a private bus resulting in injuries to her. She has contended that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the KSRTC driver. On the other hand, respondents 1 and 2 contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the private bus and further contended that the application is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. The Tribunal held that as the crew of the MACA 812/2008 -:2:- private bus has not been impleaded as parties, the negligence is apportioned equally among the two drivers. In this court the appellant has produced the charge sheet which would indicate that the police after due investigation has charge sheeted the driver of the KSRTC bus for negligent driving under Sections 279,337 and 338 IPC. The claimant had been examined and she has spoken about the negligence of the KSRTC bus driver. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the charge sheet would indicate that the negligence was on the KSRTC driver. The driver of the KSRTC bus did not mount the box to tender any evidence in support of his contention regarding the negligence of the other driver. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the KSRTC bus is only negligent to the extent of 50% is incorrect and it is set aside and I hold that the materials available only indicate the total negligence of the KSRTC driver. 3. Now turning to the quantum it has to be stated that in the accident, this 25 year old lady, who is also a handicapped lady on account of her being deaf and dumb lost one tooth and had mobility of another tooth besides another injuries. The Tribunal has only awarded Rs.1,000/- for the said injuries. When a tooth is lost and another tooth has become mobile, there must be corresponding injuries on the gum and other parts. Loss of natural tooth certainly is a handicap and therefore, taking into consideration MACA 812/2008 -:3:- these aspects, I am inclined to grant Rs.4,000/- towards loss of tooth and loosening of tooth. On all other heads, the compensation awarded appears to be reasonable which does not call for interference. In the result, MACA is disposed of as follows: The finding on negligence of 50% is set aside and the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.12,750/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. They are directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-