IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 687 of 2003() ------------------------------ OPMV.1095/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------ CIJI, W/O. BIJU, VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, MANKAVU P.O., KALLARKUTTY, ADIMALY. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SOORAJ T. ELANJICKAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. K.M.MATHAI @ JOHNY, S/O. MATHEW, KANJAMALAYIL HOUSE, KAMBILIKANDOM, KONNATHADI, MUKKUDAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. BIJU, S/O. THOMAS @ JOSEPH, THADATHIL HOUSE, NO.707, WARD NO.VI, ERUMELY, VANDIPERIYAR. (DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES VIDE ORDER IN C.M.A NO.1200/2003) 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. ADV. SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A NO. 687 OF 2003 ------------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in Op(MV) No.1095/99 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated June 30, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,08,800/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: The claimant was aged 21 at the time of accident and used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month as a labourer. On April 12, 1999, the claimant was travelling in a Jeep bearing registration No. KL5/4136 driven by 1st respondent. When the vehicle reached at Kuthukuzhi near Kothamangalam on Aluva-Munnar public road, at about 4.30 a.m, while negotiating a curve, the Jeep capsized into a paddy field and passengers in the vehicle M.A.C.A NO. 687 OF 2003 2 including the claimant sustained serious injuries. She became paraplegie. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, the driver of the offending Jeep. The 1st respondent as the driver, the 2nd respondent as the owner and the 3rd respondent as the insurer of the offending Jeep are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. The 1st respondent, the driver of the offending Jeep filed a written statement admitting the accident, but denying the liability. The 2nd respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and was set ex-parte by the Tribunal.The 3rd respondent, the insurer of the offending Jeep filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. This O.P. was jointly tried along with the other O.Ps filed by other injured persons in the accident and a common award was passed. 5. PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exts. A1 to A68 were marked on the side of the claimant. On the side of the respondents Ext.B1 was marked. On an appreciation of evidence,the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,08,800/-. M.A.C.A NO. 687 OF 2003 3 The appellant/claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant 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 2nd respondent, the driver of the offending Jeep is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ?. 8. The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed from Ext.A45, the copy of the wound certificate issued by St.Joseph's Hospital, Kothamangalam. “ Fracture and dislocation of spine (T11 and T12 with paraplegia, compressive myelopathy, radicular Neuropathy of UL and trunk, Neck stiffness and tissue loss, sensary loss between lumbar vertibra and loss of power of both lower limb. She had also sustained fracture of vertibral column resulting in paralysis below the level of chest. She had no sensation on the region below chest level and she was not able to sit or move on bed by herself”. M.A.C.A NO. 687 OF 2003 4 The claimant was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal. PW3 is the one of the member of Medical Board who issued the disability certificate Ext.A53 certifying that the claimant is paraplegie and has a disability of 70%. PW4 is another doctor who issued the certificate Ext.A68 certifying that claimant has occupational disability of 100%. 9. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,08,800/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Permanent disability caused :Rs. 2,55,000 Expenses for transportation :Rs. 5,000 Damage to clothings :Rs. 300 Extra nourishment :Rs. 15,000 Medical expenses :Rs. 33,500 Future medical expenses :Rs. 10,000 Pain and sufferings :Rs. 50,000 Loss of amenities and } :Rs. 40,000 enjoyment of life } ------------------------ Total :Rs. 4,08,800 ========= 10. The counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for disability caused for pain and suffering endured and for future medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the pain and M.A.C.A NO. 687 OF 2003 5 sufferings endured by the claimant. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. 11. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 15,000/- per annum and adopted a multiplier 17 and took the disability as 100% and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,55,000/- for the disability caused. The counsel for Insurance company argued that in Ext. A53 certificate the doctor has certified only 70% disability and that therefore the Tribunal is not justified in taking her disability as 100%. We are unable to agree. The claimant is totally incapacitated. She is paraplegie. Therefore we are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in taking her disability as 100%. 12. The claimant was a lady labourer, aged 21 at the time of accident. Therefore, we feel that her monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per month. Multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is not seriously challenged. As she is paraplegie and suffering a disability of 100%, we feel that towards disability M.A.C.A NO. 687 OF 2003 6 caused she is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,08,000/- (2000 x 12 x 17). Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/-. 13. For future treatment expenses Rs. 10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal which appears to be inadequate, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. As the claimant is paraplegie, for future medical expenses she will require a considerable sum. Therefore, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 90,000/- on this count. As regards compensation awarded under other heads we feel the same to be reasonable. Therefore, we are not disturbing the same. 14. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 2,68,000/-. She is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization 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 copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above M.A.C.A NO. 687 OF 2003 7 extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER (JUDGE) P.Q. BARKATH ALI (JUDGE) PKK