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 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 MACA.No. 2671 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.2847/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- LOVELY JOHNSON, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.K.M.JOHNSON, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, NEAR KATTAKKAVU CHURCH, NORTH PARUR.P.O, N.PARUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. K.A.RASHEED, KARUKAPADATH HOUSE, KARA.P.O, KODUNGALLUR. 2. P.T.UNNIKRISHNAN, PEECHANATH HOUSE, ERIYAD.P.O, KODUNGALLUR. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MAIN ROAD, N.PARUR 683 513. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.2671 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.2847 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. In this appeal, she challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 29.1.2008 awarding a compensation of ` 89,000/- for the loss caused to her on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident. 2. The accident happened on May 6, 2001 at about 11.30 A.M. While the claimant was standing on the eastern side of Edappally - Cheranelloor Road, she was knocked down by a car driven by the second respondent. She sustained the following injuries in the accident. (i) open fracture of right fibula and left calcaneum and MACANo.2671/2008 2 (ii) a degloving injury on the right leg. 3. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the driver of the offending car, the claimant, filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of ` 3 lakhs. 4. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending car remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending car, filed a written statement admitting the policy of the offending vehicle. 5. This O.P. was jointly tried along with another O.P. filed by another injured person in the accident and a common award was passed. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the MACANo.2671/2008 3 accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent and awarded a compensation of ` 89,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter, @ 8% per annum till realisation. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned 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 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 Tribunal awarded a total compensation of MACANo.2671/2008 4 ` 89,000/-. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under : Transportation, hospitalisation, ` 5,000/- attendant expenses, Extra nourishment and damage to clothings Medical expenses ` 40,000/- Loss of earnings ` 6,000/- Pain and suffering ` 18,000/- For discomforts & inconveniences ` 15,000/- For future expenses including ` 5,000/- physiotherapy ------------------- ` 89,000/- ============= 9. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the pain and suffering and on other heads. He pointed out that the Tribunal did not award any compensation for the disability caused to the claimant. 10. PW2, the Orthopedic Surgeon, has assessed that the claimant has a permanent disability of 9%. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the claimant is entitled to a compensation for the disability caused to her. The claimant is a house wife, aged 36. Therefore, we feel that MACANo.2671/2008 5 the monthly income of the claimant can be reasonably fixed at ` 2,500/-. The proper multiplier that can be adopted in this case is 15. Taking into account the nature of disability caused to the claimant as seen from Exhibit A6 certificate, we feel that her permanent disability can be assessed at 5%. Thus calculated, for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of ` 22,500/- (5% of ` 2,500 x 12 x 15). 11. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded ` 6,000/- for loss of earnings @ ` 2,000/- per month for a period of three months. We have fixed the monthly income of the claimant as ` 2,500/-. Therefore, on this count, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of ` 7,500/-, that is, for three months @ ` 2,500/- per month. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. MACANo.2671/2008 6 12. In the result, the appellant is found entitled to an additional compensation of ` 24,000/-. The appellant is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. The third respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimant. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE csl