IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 92 of 2004() --------------------- OPMV.1126/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER:- ---------------------------------- SUSAN B.JOSEPH, HOUSE NO.A.224, KALATHIL DALE, ADARSH NAGAR, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAGHAVAN SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SMT.PREETHA D/O. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, PRADEEP BHAVAN, PARAKODU, ADOOR (OWNER OF THE MINI LORRY KL 03A/9772). 2. MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PB.NO.633, CSI SQUARE BAKER HILL, KOTTAYAM (INSURER OF THE MINI LORRY, KL.03 A/9772). 3. R.KRISHNA KURUP S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, ERUTHI VADAKKETHIL, PARAKODE, ADOOR (DRIVER OF MINI LORRY KL.03A/9772) LICENCE NO.QL.9091. 4. FRANCIS BERNAD S/O. JULIAN BERNAD, 1/297, PARALE ROAD, COCHIN, (OWNER OF THE CAR KL.7A/2899) 5. THE MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., COCHIN-2. (INSURER OF THE CAR KL.7A/2899) 6. MATHEW RAJAN S/O A.M.RAJAN, ANAKOTTU HOUSE, EZHOMKULAM, ADOOR (DRIVER OF THE CAR KL.07A/2899, DRIVING LICENCE NO.PA/929/92) ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R2 SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 92 of 2004 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1126 of 1996 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram challenges the award of the Tribunal dated January 8, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,14,800/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of application till realization for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these :- The claimant who was aged 27 at the time of the accident was a Computer Programmer and earning Rs.3,500/- per month, according to her. On December 11, 1995 the claimant and her mother were travelling in a car bearing registration No. KL-7 A 2899 along MACA 92/04 2 Vadakkadathukavu-Parakkode road. The car was driven by the sixth respondent and owned by the fourth respondent. At that time, the car collided head on a lorry bearing registration No.KL-3 A 9772, which is owned by the first respondent, driven by the third respondent and insured with the second respondent. The fifth respondent is the insurer of the car. Claimant and her mother sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. The respondents, being the owners, drives and insurers of the offending vehicles, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. She has claimed a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the lorry involved in the accident filed written statement admitting the policy, but contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car involved in the accident. Respondents 4 to 6, the owner, the insurer and the driver of the car, filed written MACA 92/04 3 statement admitting the policy of the car, contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. 4. The mother of the claimant has filed O.P. (MV) No.1127 of 1996 before the Tribunal and both the petitions were jointly tried by the Tribunal. PWs.1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of evidence awarded a compensation of Rs.3,14,800/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the sixth respondent, driver of the car 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 Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,14,800/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is MACA 92/04 4 as under :- Pain and sufferings : Rs.15,000/- Loss of earning : Rs.6,000/- Treatment expenses, : Rs.46,000/- transportation and other incidental medical expenses. Disability caused : Rs.1,72,800/- Loss of amenities, : Rs.75,000/- enjoyment in life and dis-figuration. -------------------- Total : Rs.3,14,800 ======== 7. The claimant sustained the following injuries:- 1) Irregular lacerated wound lid lateral angle of right eye extending to temperal region. 2) Lacerated injury upper lid medial end 1.5 cm. long extending eyebrow right. 3) Lacerated wound 2 c.m. long frontal region above right eyelid. 4) Multiple small abrasions frontal region. 5) Abrasion nose total retinal detachment right eye. 6) Penetrating injury right eye, 7) Corneoscleral tear 14 m.m. - 15 m.m. Extending 7 m.m. back to the selera right eye and collapse of eye ball. MACA 92/04 5 The corneoscleral wound repair was done in Benziger Hospital, Kollam and victrectomy right eye was done in the Sankara Netralaya. Exts.A7 and A7(a) certificates show that she has lost vision of right eye and has a visualacuity of 6/5 N6 in the left eye. The Tribunal assessed disability at 40% and took her monthly income as Rs.2,000/- and adopted multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs.1,72,800/- towards disability caused. 8. The learned counsel for appellant submits that the claimant was a Diploma holder in Computer Application as proved by Ext.A1 and that she was assisting her husband in conducting a computer class and therefore, the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal is very low. The learned counsel for the appellant has also sought enhancement of compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. 9. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment undergone, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and MACA 92/04 6 reasonable. Therefore, we are not disturbing the same. That being so, the appeal is devoid of any merit and it has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. Sd/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn. /true copy/ P.S. to Jugdge.