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 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 MACA.No. 1138 of 2007() ------------------------------------ OPMV.72/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S):/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ BABU NAZAR V.C., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, VATTANCHERI CHALIL, PARAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.MORAYUR. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ 1. KOORIYIL RAYEESH, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, VADAKKETHALA AMSOM, VELLARKULAM, P.O.PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (DRIVER) 2. VIJAYAKUMAR, VIJAYA ELECTRICALS, 11/1035, SUNSHINE COMPLEX, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SHOBA TSM COMPLEX, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, PALAKKAD. 4. MUSTHAFA A.T., S/O. KUNHEEDU, KALLANKADIPULIYAN PARAMB, P.O.KARIPPUR. (DRIVER). 5. T.MOIDUTTY, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, THUMBATH HOUSE, AKAMPADAM P.O., ERANHIMANGAD, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ARAFA BUILDING, COURT ROAD, MANJERI. R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 1138 of 2007 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.72/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Tirur. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated June 30, 2006 awarding a compensation of ` 2,00,000/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The accident happened on August 24, 2001 at about 7.30 p.m. at Nediyiruppu. While the claimant was pillion riding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL- 10/G 9721, a jeep bearing registration No.KL-9/F 124, driven by the first respondent, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle. He sustained serious injuries. Alleging negligence against the first respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a MACA 1138/2007 2 compensation of ` 5,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1, 2 and 4, driver and owner of the offending jeep and rider of the motor cycle, though entered appearance but did not file any written statement. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending jeep, filed a written statement admitting the policy of the vehicle, but contended that as it is a collision between the two vehicles, drivers of both the vehicles were negligent. The fifth respondent, the owner of the motor cycle, remained absent and he was set ex parte by the Tribunal. The sixth respondent, insurer of the motor cycle, filed a written statement admitting the policy of the vehicle but contended that the accident occurred solely due to negligence of the first respondent. The claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claimant. ExtB1 was marked on the side of the respondents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the first respondent, the driver of the offending jeep, and awarded a MACA 1138/2007 3 compensation of `2,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and a cost of ` 2,000/- against respondents 1 to 3. The claimant has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the counsel for the claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent, the driver of the offending jeep, 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. 6. The claimant sustained the following injuries in the accident:- 1) Shortening and deformity of lower thigh and knee. 2) Comminuted inter condylar fracture of the left femur. Ext.A14 the certificate of disability shows that claimant has MACA 1138/2007 4 the following disabilities:- 1) Partial loss of medial femoral condyle. 2) Gross osteoarthritic changes. 3) Impairement of the physical function of the left lower limb by 12%. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ` 2,00,000/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Transportation expenses : ` 5,000 Damage to clothing : ` 500 Bystander's expenses : ` 9,500 Extra nourishment : ` 5,000 Medical bills : ` 52,500 Loss of earning : ` 27,000 Pain and suffering : ` 20,000 Permanent disability : ` 73,440 Disfiguration of left leg : ` 7,000 ------------------ Total : `1,99,940 Rounded to : `2,00,000 ======= 8. The counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the disability caused and on other heads. 9. The claimant was aged 22 at the time of the MACA 1138/2007 5 accident and working as a Painter. The Tribunal took his monthly income as Rs.3,000/-, took the percentage of disability as 12%, as certified by the doctor in Ext.A14 and adopted a multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs.73,440/- for the disability caused. 10. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and the period of treatment he has undergone and the fact that he was aged 22 at the time of the accident and that he was working as a Painter, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the disability caused and on other heads is just and reasonable. It follows that he is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn