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 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 1489 of 2004(C) ----------------------- OPMV.1408/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- SUMESH KRISHNA, MINOR 9 YEARS, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN/ FATHER UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. PARANGODAN, PULIKKATHODI HOUSE, P.O.KAVALAMUKKATTA, NILAMBUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. K.VEERANKUTTY, S/O. MOHAMMED, KINATTINGAL HOUSE, P.O.CHANDAKKUNNU, NILAMBUR (OWNER) 2. AHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.MOHAMMED, KUNHIPURAYIL HOUSE, P.O.CHANDAKKUNNU, NILAMBUR (DRIVER) 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MANJERI. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1489 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: AUGUST 13, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) 1408/1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. He was a boy aged 9 at the time of the accident. He sustained the following injuries in a motor accident that occurred on April 6, 1999 at about 4.45 p.m.: “(1) Deep lacerated wounds over left side of face and left chest. (2) Deep abrasion left side of chest and left side of abdomen. (3) Blunt injury abdomen with haemophritoneum and spelinc injury. (4) Lacerated wound left elbow. (5) Fracture rib 4th left hamothorax. (6) Fracture body scapula left and left elbow. (7) Fracture olecranon with foreign body.” 2. The accident happened while he was riding his bicycle from Kavalamukkatta to Pookkottumpadam. He was knocked down by bus bearing registration No.KLM 9783 driven by the 2nd respondent. Alleging negligence against the 2nd respondent, he filed the OP through his next friend father before the Tribunal under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and driver of the offending bus, M.A.C.A.1489 of 2004 2 remained absent. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the offending bus, filed a written statement admitting the policy and further contending that there was also negligence on the part of the claimant. 4. Exts.A1 to A8 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the 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.1,05,400/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.2000/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. 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. 7. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: transport to hospital Rs.7500/- extra nourishment 2050/- bystander's expenses 2050/- M.A.C.A.1489 of 2004 3 medical expenses 43300/- pain and suffering 10000/- disability 40500 8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for the pain and suffering endured by the claimant, for the and for future treatment expenses. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the pain and suffering endured, which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the serious nature of the injuries, we feel that a compensation of Rs.30,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 9. No compensation was seen awarded by the Tribunal for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained, we feel that a compensation of Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable on this count. 10. The Tribunal did not award any amount for the future treatment expenses. The petitioner has suffered a disability of 18% as seen from Ext.X1 certificate issued by the Medical Board, copy of which was produced by the counsel for the petitioner for our perusal. He has suffered the following disabilities : “........... Laparotomy & spleenectomy done there. Split skin grafting done under G.A. Big ugly looking hyper-trophied scar over elbow joints present. ROM (L) elbow normal ugly looking scar over (L) side face and (L) side neck extends from (L) lateral and anterior aspect of neck to the front of chest below the nipple. Another hyper trophied scar over (L) loin present M.A.C.A.1489 of 2004 4 extending to the anterior abdominal wall, chest movements decreased on (L) side. Hence a partial disability of 18%.” The above aspect shows that the claimant needs future treatment for which we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. 11. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal awarded interest only at the rate of 6% per annum, which appears to be very low. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum for the compensation already awarded and for the enhanced compensation 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/-