IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1436 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.1865/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------ STEPHEN, S/O PONNUMONY, MELOTTUVILA MEENACHAL, PADANTHALUMOODU, KANYAKUMARI, NOW RESIDING AT PANAVILA, CHEMMANTHATTU VEEDU, KUNNATTUKAL, KARAKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------- 1. ABDUL KABEER, S/O AHAMMEDKUTTY, MACHINGAL HOUSE, PONMALA, CHAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1436 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellant while walking along the road on 23.6.2003 was knocked down by a vehicle, KL-10-P-869, owned and ridden by the first respondent, causing serious injuries, which led to the claim. The first respondent, who was the owner cum driver of the vehicle, chose to remain ex parte and the matter was contested only from the part of the Insurance Company. 2. The evidence consists of only the documents produced and marked as Exts.A1 to A4, on the side of the claimant, and Ext.B1, copy of the policy, marked on the side of the respondents. Neither side chose to adduce any oral evidence. On conclusion of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident was occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent. MACA No.1436/2007 2 3. After going through the materials on record, particularly, Ext.A6 wound certificate , Ext.P7 Discharge certificate, as also Ext.A13 disability certificate, the compensation payable was fixed by granting a sum of Rs.7000/- towards 'pain and suffering', Rs.4,000/- towards 'discomfort, inconvenience and loss of amenities', Rs.4000/- towards 'loss of earning' for two months, Rs.250/- towards 'damage to clothing', Rs.1000/- towards 'transport to hospital', and another sum of Rs.1000/- towards 'bystanders expenses', besides Rs.10,000/- allowed in respect of 'medical expenses'. Reckoning the notional income of the claimant as Rs.2000/- per month and adopting a multiplier of 16, based on his age as 19 years, the Tribunal awarded Rs.11,520/- as the compensation for 'permanent disability', fixing the permanent disability at 3%, as against the certified extent of 8% revealed from Ext.A13 disability certificate. The claimant has chosen to challenge the quantum in this appeal, stating that there was absolutely no reason for the Tribunal to have limited the 'permanent disability' to just 3%, when Ext.A13 certificate issued from the concerned Medical College Hospital, was never chosen to be challenged in any manner, from the part of the respondents. MACA No.1436/2007 3 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the injuries caused to the petitioner have been adequately satisfied, particularly, when the claimant did not choose to enter the box by giving any oral evidence. However, the fact remains that the injuries sustained by the claimant are of serious nature, involving head injury, as discussed by the Tribunal in paragraph 6 of the Award. Merely for the reason that nobody was examined on the part of the claimant to substantiate Ext.A13, the same could not have been ignored without assigning any reasons, while limiting the 'permanent disability' to 3%. 5. We have gone through the records. Ext.A13 issued by the Assistant Professor of Surgery of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, clearly certifies that the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by the claimant has resulted in periodic attacks of ataxia (unsteadiness of gait) and the permanent disability on this account was assessed as 6%. Further, hearing impairment of one ear also resulted in 2% permanent disability; thus making a total of 8%. Going by the said certificate, we find that the 'permanent disability' reckoned by the Tribunal at 3% is very much on the lower side MACA No.1436/2007 4 and we find it necessary to have the same increased to 6%. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to have a further sum of Rs.11,520/- towards the balance compensation payable in this regard. We find that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are quite adequate and not require any modification. 6. In the result, we grant a sum of Rs.11,520/- as the balance compensation payable towards 'permanent disability' suffered by the appellant/claimant and the said amount shall be satisfied by the second respondent, Insurance Company, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed in part. No cost. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.