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 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 1085 of 2010(A) ----------------------- OPMV.837/2005 of PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ PRADEEP KUMAR, AGE 32 YEARS, SON OF SADANAND, HARITHA NIVAS, PUTHUSSERY PARAMBA PARAMBIL POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. RAFI, SON OF MOIDEEN KOYA, 15/893, NINAN VALAPPIL, KALLAI POST, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1085 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: AUGUST 16, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) 837/2005 on the file of the Prl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. He sustained bimalleolar type II compound fracture on left ankle in a motor accident that occurred on July 27, 2004. The accident happened while the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-11-S-3877 in which he was travelling overturned at Parambil Bazaar near Kozhikode. Alleging negligence against the 1st respondent, owner-cum-driver of the offending autorickshaw, the claimant filed the OP before the Tribunal under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-. 2. Respondent No.1, the owner-cum-driver of the offending autorickshaw, remained absent before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement admitting the policy. 3. Exts.A1 to A3 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 found that M.A.C.A.1085 of 2010 2 the accident happened due to the negligence of the 1st respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.24,158/- with interest at the rate of 7% 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. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: medical bills Rs.1158/- incidental charges 1500/- pain and suffering 8000/- future treatment 4000/- loss of amenity 5000/- loss of notional income 4000/- transportation 500/- 6. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, for loss of income and for pain and suffering endured by the claimant. 7. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.5000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Taking into account the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable on this count. M.A.C.A.1085 of 2010 3 8. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1300/-, and awarded Rs.4000/- for loss of income. The claimant claims to be a carpenter earning Rs.5000/- per month. Therefore we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.2500/-. The nature of the injuries sustained by him shows that he must have been disabled for three months for which he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.7500/-. 9. Rs.8000/- was awarded for the pain and suffering endured. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10000/- would be reasonable on this count. Counsel for the appellant submitted that for removing the implants at the fracture site, the claimant has to spend about more than Rs.5000/-, but the Tribunal awarded only Rs.4000/- for the same. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained, we feel that an additional compensation of Rs.2000/- would be reasonable on this count. 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.12500/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 2nd M.A.C.A.1085 of 2010 4 respondent being the insurer 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/-