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 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 MACA.No. 2336 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.412/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................. APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PONNANI NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------- AYISHA, W/O.ASSAINAR, THUREEKKANAKATH HOUSE, PONNANI SOUTH.P.O, PIN-679586. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 2336 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF APRIL, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J: Appellant is the Insurance Company, the 3rd respondent in O.P.(MV) No.412/2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. In this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated April 26, 2008 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- for the loss caused to claimant on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident. 2. The accident happened on May 30, 2004 at 7.00 p.m. While the claimant was walking along with Puthuponnani-Ponnani road and reached in front of T.B. Hospital at Ponnani she was knocked down by the motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-11A-5118 ridden by the 2nd respondent in O.P. She sustained fracture to both bones of left leg. 3. Alleging negligence against the 2nd respondent in OP, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under MACA No.2336/2008 -2- Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. 4. 1st Respondent in the O.P., the owner of the offending motor cycle remained absent before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent in the OP, the rider of the offending motor cycle filed a written statement admitting the accident but denied the liability. The 3rd respondent in the O.P., the insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy of the vehicle. 5. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent in the O.P. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent in the O.P. and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.3,000/-. The 3rd respondent in the O.P., the Insurance Company has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of MACA No.2336/2008 -3- compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Heard the counsel for the Insurance Company and the Counsel for the claimant. 7. The accident is not disputed. The findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent in the O.P is not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arise for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,70,000/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: Transport to hospital - Rs. 5,000/- Damage to clothing - Rs. 500/- Expense of home nurse - Rs. 57,500/- Medical bills - Rs. 73,200/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 7,000/- Loss of income - Rs. 24,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 20,000/- Permanent disability - Rs. 82,800/- ------------------- Total Rs.2,70,000/- ======== 9. Counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company MACA No.2336/2008 -4- argued that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive especially towards expense of home nurse. 10. We find force in the above contention. The Tribunal awarded Rs.57,500/- towards expenses for the home nurse. The claimant produced Ext.A14 series of receipt to show that she has paid Rs.3,500/- for 15 months for the Home nurse. The person who issued Ext.A14 series of receipts were not examined before the Tribunal to prove the same. Therefore, the Tribunal in not justified in awarding the entire amount covered by Ext.A14 series. We feel that a compensation of Rs.2,500/- towards expenses incurred on account of engagement of home nurse would be reasonable in this case. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and not excessive. 11. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- instead of Rs.2,70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant shall deposit the amount with interest and costs within two months from the MACA No.2336/2008 -5- date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimants The award of the Tribunal is modified to that extent. The appeal is allowed as found above. Sd/- A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. Sd/- P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge