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 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 1696 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.1565/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- SHAMEER @ SHABEER, S/O MOHAMED ALI, PUVVAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEEZHPULLIKKARA DESOM, THANIAM VILLAGE, KEEZHPULLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 --------------------------------- 1. CHINNAMMA JACOB, W/O JACOB, KOORAN KAROTTU HOUSE, ANGADIKADAVU P.O., ANGAMALY. 2. MANOJ, S/O VARGHESE, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANGADIKADAVU P.O., ANGAMALY. 3. MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1696 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JULY 13, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The appellant is the claimant in OP(MV)1565/2001 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. He sustained serious injuries in a motor accident. Claiming a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs, he filed the OP under sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against respondents 1 to 3, the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. Only the 3rd respondent Insurance Company contested the matter. PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A21 were marked before the Tribunal by the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence awarded a compensation of Rs.1,34,658/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Though the insurance company of the car in which the claimant was travelling was made a party as the fourth respondent, no relief was claimed against the fourth respondent. 3. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced M.A.C.A. 1696 of 2007 2 compensation? 4. The claimant sustained “head injury - pneumocephalus, cerebral oedema, fracture skull, lacerated and left lobe of liver-one litre of blood in peritoneal cavity. Nephrectomy and spleenectomy done”. Ext.A7 is the copy of the wound certificate, Ext.A8 is the scan report, Ext.A9 is the medical certificate and Ext.A10 is the discharge summary issued from the hospital. The claimant sustained permanent disability of 14% as certified by PW2, the doctor. He suffered another 35% permanent disability due to removal of his spleen as testified by PW.3, another doctor. 5. The Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation awarded for the disability caused, for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and for pain and suffering endured. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.3000/- and taking the permanent disability as 20%, awarded only Rs.36,000/- for the permanent disability caused. The claimant was aged 29 at the time of the accident and was working in Gulf as a Homoeopathic Practitioner. Ext.A16 is the copy of his passport. Ext.A17 is the copy of his service agreement which shows that he was working as a Homoeopathic Practitioner in Oman and was getting 500 Omani Riyals per month which comes to Rs.50,000/- per month. Taking into M.A.C.A. 1696 of 2007 3 consideration this fact, we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed as Rs.15,000/- for the purpose of computing compensation for the disability caused. As he was aged 29, the proper multiplier that can be adopted is 18. The percentage of disability can be taken as 15% as he is still working in the Gulf. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,86,000/- (15000 x 12 x 18 x 15%). 6. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs.15,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 7. The Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering endured by the claimant which appears to be quite inadequate. Taking into consideration the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. 8. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,68,000/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 3rd M.A.C.A. 1696 of 2007 4 respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-