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 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 266 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.1588/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- THANKAMMA, W/O.DEVASYA, THACHIRAVELY HOUSE, PATTITHANAM.P.O., KANAKKARI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ---------------------------------- 1. MATHEW, S/O.CHERIAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, NEAR MALIKAPADY, MEENADAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. K.S.R.T.C., TRIVANDRUM. ADV. V.V NANDAGOPAL SC.KSRTC THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 266 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JUNE 14, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimant in OP(MV) 1588/1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal, dated, January 17, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- 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: On January 12, 1995 the claimant was standing on the side of the road at Pattithanam. At that time she was knocked down by a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KLX 5852 driven by he 1st respondent. The claimant sustained very serious injuries. According to the claimant the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, driver of the offending bus. The 1st respondent as the driver and the 2nd respondent as the owner of the offending bus are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. The respondents filed a written statement admitting the accident, but contended that the accident occurred due to the M.A.C.A. 266 of 2004 2 negligence of the claimant. 4. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 2nd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the 2nd respondent. 6. The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed from Ext.A5 copy of the wound certificate: “Severe crush injury on the right upper limb extending from the wrist to the axilla and swelling of forehead with bleeding from nose.” Ext.A9 discharge certificate shows that she had fracture to the humerous also. Ext.A7 certificate of disability shows that the claimant has a disability of 50%. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,22,000/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- M.A.C.A. 266 of 2004 3 pain and suffering - Rs.15,000/- loss of earnings - 9,000/- treatment expenses - 5,000/- bystander's expenses - 1,500/- transportation - 500/- disability - 81,000/- loss of amenities - 10,000/- 8. The Counsel for the appellant/claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for the disability caused. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1500/- and took the percentage of disability as 30% and adopted a multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs.81,000/- for the disability caused. The income of the claimant as a construction worker assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.1500/- appears to be reasonable. The claimant was aged 35 at the time of the accident. Her entire muscles of the right hand was torn off. Therefore 50% disability assessed by the Medical Board in Ext.A7 appears to be reasonable. Further, the Tribunal did not say any reason for reducing the percentage of disability. As the claimant was aged only 35, the proper multiplier that can be adopted is 17. Thus calculated, for the disability caused and for the consequential loss of earning power, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- (1500 x 12 x 17 x 50%). M.A.C.A. 266 of 2004 4 9. There is another aspect in this case. The injury sustained on her right hand caused serious disfigurement. Therefore for the loss of future prospects, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. 10. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.82,000/-. She is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum for the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 2nd respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-