IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 1699 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.1872/1995 of II ADDL. M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE OP.MV. ------------------------------------------------ M.M.RAMESH, S/O.PACHUKUTTY, MANNAMPARATH MEETHAL HOUSE, EDAKKARA P.O. CHELANNUR VIA, PATTELIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. C.P.RAMANKUTTY, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, CHAKKALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTUKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. C.P.KRISHNADAS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CHAKKALATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDIYIRUPPU AMSOM AND DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PANDI AUTO BUILDING P.B.NO.11, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1699 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JULY 28, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant, a goldsmith aged 27, sustained the following injuries in a motor accident which occurred on April 2, 1995: “abrasion left arm 12x3 cm; left elbow 3x2 cm; thigh upper 3rd 5 x 4 cm. lower 1/3rd, left leg exposing fibula lower 3rd and fracture fibula.” The accident happened when the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL.11/A-5582 driven by the 2nd respondent, in which he was travelling, overturned. Alleging negligence against the 2nd respondent, the claimant filed OP(MV) 1872/2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, claiming a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and driver of the offending autorickshaw, remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the offending autorickshaw, filed a written statement admitting the policy. 3. Exts.A1 to A5 and X1 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the M.A.C.A. 1699 of 2005 2 contesting 3rd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.50,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.800/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 6. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: economic loss Rs.32,400/- pain and suffering 13,000/- other eligible counts 5,000/- 7. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for the disability caused and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The Tribunal took the annual income of the M.A.C.A. 1699 of 2005 3 claimant as Rs.15,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 18 and took the percentage of disability as 12% as shown in Ext.X1 certificate of disability and awarded Rs.32,400/- for the disability caused. As the claimant claims to be a goldsmith, we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.2000/-. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 18 and the percentage of disability is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated, for the disability caused the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.51,840/-. Therefore on this count the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.19,440/-. 8. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained and the disability caused to the claimant, we feel that for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable. 9. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal did not award any amount for loss of earnings. The nature of the injuries sustained shows that the claimant must have been disabled for two months for which he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4000/- As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. 10. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation M.A.C.A. 1699 of 2005 4 of Rs.33,440/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 3rd 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/-