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 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 MACA.No. 155 of 2011() ---------------------------------- OP(MV) .1358/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ DR. K.M.SUJATHA, W/O.M.V.SUDEVAN, "SUKRITI", GREEN NAGAR, P.O.KARUVASSERY, VENGERI DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI. ANEISH.S. SRI. ARUN KRISHNADHAN SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE MULLAKKARIYIL SRI. RATHEESH KUMAR.K. RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHINI, W/O. MOHANDAS, KALLUVETTU PARAMBA, NEAR RARICHAN ROAD, P.O.ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE.PIN- 673 006 2. T.K.ANIL KUMAR, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, THATTARAKANDY HOUSE, P.O.WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE.PIN- 673 005 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., TRIPURI BUILDING, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE.PIN- 673 011 BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 155 of 2011 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1358 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. In this appeal she challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated April 13, 2010 awarding a compensation of Rs.77,650/- for the loss caused to her on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident. She sustained a comminuted fracture of left femur. 2. The accident occurred on March 14, 2008 at about 5.30 p.m. at Indoor Stadium bus stop. While the claimant was riding a scooter bearing registration No.KL-11 Q 5085, she was knocked down by an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-11 H 6751, driven by the second respondent. She sustained serious injuries. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, she filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.2,15,000/-. MACA 155/2011 2 3. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and driver of the offending auto-rickshaw, filed a written statement admitting the accident but denied the negligence of the second respondent. The third respondent, insurer of the offending auto-rickshaw, filed a written statement, admitting the policy but attributed negligence to the claimant. 4. PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimant. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs.77,650/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimant has come up in appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No notice was issued to respondents in this appeal, who are the owner, driver and insurer of the offending auto-rickshaw, as on going through the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal, we felt that even without notice to the respondents this appeal can be disposed of. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal MACA 155/2011 3 that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent, driver of the offending auto-rickshaw, is not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question, which arises for consideration, is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.77,650/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Transportation expenses : Rs. 300 Damage to clothing : Rs. 500 Treatment expenses : Rs.60,000 Bystander's expenses : Rs. 1,100 Loss of earnings : Rs. 3,750 Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000 Loss of amenities of lief : Rs. 2,000 ------------------ Total : Rs.77,650 ======= 8. The learned counsel for the claimant has argued that no compensation was awarded for disability caused and sought enhancement of compensation for pain and suffering and on other heads. 9. The claimant did not produce any certificate to show that she has suffered any disability due to the injuries sustained. MACA 155/2011 4 Further she has not chosen to enter the box and testify regarding the alleged disability caused to her. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in not awarding any compensation for the alleged disability. 10. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that the compensation awarded under various heads is just and reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. Therefore, we hold that the claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. That being so, the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn