IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 MFA.No. 743 of 2002(E) --------------------------------- OPMV.842/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN OP (MV) NO.842/96 ------------------------------------------------------------------ STELLA D/O. DAVID, NANJUMALA ESTATE, LOWER DIVISION, VANDI PERIYAR, PEERUMED TALUK, MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER & NEXT FRIEND) S.DAVID S/O. SUNDARAM, NANJUMALA ESTATE, LOWER DIVISION, VANDI PERIYAR, PEERUMED TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.BIJU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) 842/96 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.HANEEFA, RESIDING AT CHURAKULAM KAVALA, PERIYAR TOWN, PERIYAR KARA, PERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERUMED TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SRI.P.V.RAJAN, PARASSERIL HOUSE, ANTHINADU P.O., PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.743 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The claimant in O.P.(MV) No.842/1996 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha is the appellant. She has filed this appeal complaining that quantum of compensation awarded to her is inadequate. The appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 12.6.1996. She filed Original Petition claiming compensation impleading the owner, driver and insurer. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Tribunal found that accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of autorickshaw. Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.4,750/- and directed the insurer to pay the same. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation petitioner herself has filed this appeal. 2. The only question arising for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to get any additional compensation. It is true that the appellant was a seven year old child on the date of accident. The wound certificate produced shows that she was hospitalised for 17 days. A reading of the wound certificate shows that the appellant sustained the following injuries: “Lacerated wound 8x4 cm. over the left foot dorsal aspect (skin muscles teared of). Abrasion of skin over left elbow 1x2 cm.” The case was referred to Surgeon for expert management. In fact on account of MFA No.743 2 the injury her muscles was torn of. She was in the hospital for 17 days. But the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.3,500/- for pain and suffering. Appellant was not awarded any amount on the count of treatment expenses. Considering all aspects of the matter I am of the view that at least an amount of Rs.8,000/- more ought to have been awarded on account of the serious nature of the injuries, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, etc. So the appellant is entitled to get that much amount as additional compensation. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. An award is passed in favour of the appellant authorising her to recover an amount of Rs.8,000/- as additional compensation with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Third respondent insurer is directed to deposit the additional compensation also. On deposit the appellant can withdraw the entire compensation. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks MFA No.743 3 K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. M.F.A.No.743 of 2002 JUDGMENT 27th March, 2008.