IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 598 of 2005(G) ------------------------------------ O.P(MV).NO.102/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA. .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- JOBY JOHN, S/O.IYPE ULAHANAN @ K.I.JOHN, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANNIKKATTU HOUSE, MARADYKARA, ARAKUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. VISWAS, S/O.EASWARAN, KONATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KADATHY, MEKKADAMPU P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE - R2. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 598 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)102/01. The appellant, a rider of the bike sustained injuries in a road accident. The Tribunal found him guilty to an extend of 50%, awarded a total compensation of Rs.35,600/- and deducted 50% for contributory negligence thereby allowing Rs.17,800/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum and aggrieved by the finding of the contributory negligence the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard counsel for both sides. Admittedly the appellant's vehicle was proceeding from west to east and the respondent's vehicle was proceeding from east to west. The accident had taken place in a road which is having a width more than 14 metres. The scene mahazar would reveal that the accident had taken place at 7.10 metres north of the southern tarred end. So virtually it can be held that the M.A.C.A. 598 OF 2005 -:2:- accident had taken place in the middle of the road. The scene mahazar also makes it clear that there is a clear vision of 70 meters as the road lays straight at the point of accident. It is unfortunate that the riders of the vehicle in such a wide road has caused the accident thereby resulting in injuries to both of them. The Tribunal has elaborately considered the matter and arrived at a decision regarding the negligence of both these riders. The very place of accident shows the negligence and the doctrine of res ipsa locquitor will also apply. Therefore, I do not propose to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on the question of contributory negligence. 3. Turning to the quantum, the learned counsel would contend that the petitioner had sustained very serious injuries and he was treated as an inpatient in the Medical College Hospital for four days and continued out patient treatment thereafter. The medical records available would reveal that he had fracture of the left maxilla and also fracture of the lateral wall of the left orbital. He was treated M.A.C.A. 598 OF 2005 -:3:- in the Medical Trust Hospital. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend, being a salesman aged 26 years the Tribunal would not have taken the income at Rs.1,500/- but Rs.2,500/- as contended by him. Materials are lacking but considering his avocation I feel it is sufficient to take an income at Rs.2,000/- and when it is done the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,000/- under the head of less of earnings. The Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation for pain and sufferings, medical expenses etc. but has awarded only a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. It has to be borne in mind that the fracture was on the face as well as on the orbital region which certainly would have caused mental agony, physical strain and also lack of confidence for some time. Taking into consideration these matters and the factum that he was only aged 26 years he would have been deprived of the amenities and enjoyment in life for some time. Therefore I increase that compensation by Rs.4,000/-. Therefore the claimant will be entitled to an additional M.A.C.A. 598 OF 2005 -:4:- compensation of Rs.6,000/- and when his contributory part is deducted it would come to Rs.3,000/-. Or in other words, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,000/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.3,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-