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 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 98 of 2005() --------------------- OPMV.781/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ V.R.SREEKALA, W/O.PRADEEP, RESIDING AT THEKKINKATTIL VEEDU, MATTUR P.O., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAGHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SULAIMAN, S/O.KUNJUKUTTY, KUDALPADAM, CHOONDALADE, ERATTAKULAM P.O., ALATHUR TALUK. 2. K.S.MUHAMMED NAZAR HAJI, S/O.SULAIMAN, CHANDAPURA KUZHALMANNAM P.O., ALATHUR TALUK. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., G.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No.98 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.781/1998 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs. 58,750/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injury sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts in brief are these : On may 5, 1998 at about 5.45 a.m. the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing Reg.No.KL9C.5545 from Mathur to Palakkad. When the bus reached near Kannanur bridge on the National Highway, it dashed against an elephant which was proceeding in front. The claimant as well as other passengers in the bus sustained grievous injuries. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver, second respondent. First respondent as the owner and second respondent as the driver and third respondent as the insurer of the offending bus are jointly and severally MACA.No.98/05 2 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. First respondent, the owner of the offending bus though entered appearance before the Tribunal did not file any written statement. Second respondent , the driver of the bus, remained absent and was set ex parte by the Tribunal. Third respondent, insurer of the offending bus, filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. PWs 1 and 2 were examined. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent. 5. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 58750/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Heard the counsel for appellant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 7. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent, the driver of the offending bus, is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration MACA.No.98/05 3 is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ? 7. Claimant sustained abrasion root of nose 121 cm, abrasion on conjunctive of left eye and subconjunctival hemorrhage as revealed from Ext.A3, copy of the wound certificate issued from the District Hospital, Palakkad. Ext.A5 is the copy of the discharge summary issued from the Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly which shows that the claimant has corneal tear and it was sutured. The claimant was treated in the hospital from 5-5-98 to 15-5-98. Ext.A6 is the certificate issued from the said hospital wherein the doctor has certified that petitioner had diminution of vision in the left eye to the extent of 30%. Ext.A9 disability certificate issued by the doctor shows that claimant has 15% vision to the left eye. The Tribunal awarded compensation as follows : Loss of earnings @ 1500/- for 4 months -Rs. 6,000/- Transport to hospital -Rs. 1,500/- Extra nourishment -Rs. 500/- Expenses for bystander -Rs. 1,500/- Damage to clothing -Rs. 250/- Medical expenses -Rs. 5,000/- Pain and suffering -Rs. 9,500/- Disability -Rs. 32,500/- Loss of earnings -Rs. 2,000/- --------------- Rs. 58, 750/- ========== MACA.No.98/05 4 8. The appellant disputed the compensation awarded for the disability caused, for the pain and suffering endured and for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. 9. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 1500/- and adopted a multiplier of 18 and took the disability as 10% and awarded a compensation of Rs. 32500/- towards the disability caused. As no document is produced by the claimant to prove the income of the claimant, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on this count is reasonable. 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 9500/- towards pain and suffering. Taking into consideration the injury sustained by the claimant to her left eye, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 10500/- on this count. 11. For the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, only Rs. 2000/- was awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be very low. As the claimant sustained injury on the left eye, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus MACA.No.98/05 5 on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 8000/-. In all other aspects, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable and is not questioned by the appellant. 12. In the result, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 18500/-. She is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The third respondent shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment before the Tribunal with notice to the claimant. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE The 10th paragraph of the judgment dated 17/02/2010 in M.A.C.A.No.98/2005 is substituted with “ The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 1500/- and adopted a multiplier of 18 and took the disability as 10% and awarded a compensation of Rs. 32,500/- towards the disability caused. No MACA.No.98/05 6 document was produced by the claimant to prove his income. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in taking the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1500/-. Ext.A6, the certificate issued from the hospital shows that his vision is affected. Therefore, we feel that his disability can be assessed at 20%. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 18 appears to be reasonable. Thus, for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 64,800/- ( 1500 x 12 x 18 x 20%) i.e. additional compensation of Rs. 32,300/-.” and In paragraph 13, the figure “ Rs.18,500/-” is substituted with “Rs.50,800/-.” Vide order dated 06/04/2010 in R.P.314/2010 in M.A.C.A.98/2005. Sd/- Registrar(Judicial) sv. MACA.No.98/05 7 MACA.No.98/05 8