IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 933 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.287/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- CHELLAMMA, W/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 58 YEARS, KOLPURATHU HOUSE, KALVARYMOUND KARA, THANKAMONY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. AUGUSTINE P.J., S/O.JOSEPH, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, EDACOME P.O., THALIPARAMBU. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THALIPARAMBU. ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON 12/01/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.933 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant in a road accident. Even though the appellant claimed that the jeep ran over her foot while she was walking on the road, MACT found that appellant after alighting from a bus crossed the road through the front of the bus, with the result jeep coming from behind ran over her leg without noticing her. Even though negligence was found on the part of the jeep driver, 30% was reduced towards contributory negligence. Counsel for the appellant contended that even if appellant was crossing the road after alighting from the bus, an advancing jeep should have taken care of the people alighting from a bus and crossing the road. We do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of contributory negligence because the jeep driver cannot expect passengers crossing the road through the front of the bus because people alight through the back door and normally cross 2 the road through back of the bus. Therefore, fixation of contributory negligence at 30% is quite reasonable and we sustain the finding. 2. Counsel next contended that the compensation awarded is very low, particularly, the amount granted for loss of earning. Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that appellant is only a housewife and is not proved to have any income and so much so, there is no scope for granting any enhancement of compensation for loss of earning. We cannot agree with this because even the service of a housewife is valuable and if she is disabled, she will be entitled to compensation. Besides this, counsel for the appellant submitted that being a member of the family of agriculturists, the appellant was engaged in work in her own farm and therefore, notional income should be taken for computation of compensation for loss of earning. Considering all these, we enhance the compensation for loss of earning by another Rs.15,000/-, reduce 30% towards contributory negligence and grant a net additional compensation of Rs.10,500/- which will 3 carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from date of application till date of payment. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms