IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 322 of 2010() ---------------------- OPMV.253/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O.SAIDUTTY, PARAKKORI, PO PUTHUR, KOTTAKKAL, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STELLA, W/O. AUGUSTINE JOSEPH, KALATHIL THOTTAYIL HOUSE, VETHIRAMPOYIL, PULLANGODE, P.O.KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MOIDEEN.K, S/O. ENDHEEN, KUNDIL HOUSE, PUTHUR,P.O.KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., P.B.NO.533, WHITELINES, KALLAYI ROAD, P.O.CALICUT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.322 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant has challenged the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur in O.P.(MV)No.253/2006 awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,59,520/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injury sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts in brief are these : On November 4, 2005, the petitioner was travelling in a Maruthi car bearing Reg.No.KL-5H-4438 from Parakori to Kottakkal. When the car reached at Puthur, on seeking a pick up van coming from the opposite side, second respondent who was driving the car swerved the vehicle and lost control and dashed against a telephone post on the side of the road. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent. First respondent as the owner, second respondent as the MACA.No.322/2010 Page numbers driver and third respondent as the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. First respondent , the owner of the offending car remained absent and was set ex parte before the Tribunal. The second respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle filed a written statement contending that there was no negligence on his part. Third respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy, but contending that the policy is only an act only policy and therefore the risk of the claimant is not covered by the policy. 4. On the side of the claimant, Exts.A1 to A13 series were marked and the certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board is marked as Ext.C1. On the side of the contesting third respondent, copy of the policy was marked as Ext.B1. 5. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,59,520/- to the claimant finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. MACA.No.322/2010 Page numbers 6. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for third respondent, Insurance Company. 7. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent is also not challenged in this appeal. Therefore the only question to be considered is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ? 8. The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed from Ext.A2, the copy of the wound certificate and Exts.A6 and A7 and A8, certificate issued from the hospitals. 1)Multiple lacerated wound involving both upper and lower eye lids with loss of soft tissue with retained glass pieces. 2)Collapsed eye ball, irregular pupil, cornea hazy eubluxated lens on left eye. 3)Sub cognictival hemorrhage on right eye. 9. He was a technician and doing cashier job in a petrol bunk at Puthur and was aged 28. Ext.C1 shows that he is suffering from 30% partial visual disability. The Tribunal awarded compensation as MACA.No.322/2010 Page numbers follows : Transport to hospital -Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment -Rs. 1,000/- Damage to clothing -Rs. 300/- Medical bills -Rs. 79,020/- Bystander's expenses -Rs. 5,400/- Pain and suffering -Rs. 12,000/- Permanent partial disability -Rs.2,44,800/- Loss of earning -Rs. 12,000/- ----------------- Rs.3,59,520/- ========== 19. Counsel for the appellant argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for disability caused , expenses for treatment and pain and suffering are very low and that the Tribunal would have taken the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 5000/- per month. It was also argued by the counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal did not consider the aspect that the appellant lost his job due to the injury sustained in the accident . We find no merit in the above contention. No document is produced by the appellant before the Tribunal to show that he has been terminated from service by his employer due to the injury sustained. Further, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 4,000/- and awarded Rs. 2,44,800/- for the MACA.No.322/2010 Page numbers disability caused. That part, the Tribunal has also awarded reasonable amount of compensation on other heads. Therefore, in our view this appeal is devoid of any merit and the same has to be dismissed. In the circumstances, parties have to bear their own costs. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed . No cost. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.322/2010 Page numbers