IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 1101 of 2004() ------------------------------- (O.P. (MV) NO. 22333/1999 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM) APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- MR.N.M.SUDHEESH (MINOR), DATE OF BIRTH IS 20-2-1988, S/O.LEELA, NOYAMBATTITHARA HOUSE, THURUTHUMMA KARA, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP: BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND UNCLE MR.HARIDAS, NOYAMBATTITHARA HOUSE, THURUTHUMMA KARA, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. MR.ANILKUMAR, S/O.DAMODHARAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, PALLIPURATHSSERY P.O., VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM. 2. DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PKK A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 1101 OF 2004 ------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in Op(MV) No. 22333/1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated September 17, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs. 37,250/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The Appellant/claimant sustained fracture of shaft of femur and lacerated injury on the side of forehead in a motor accident that occurred on August 4, 1999 at about 4.15 P.M. at Vaikom. While he was walking along the side of road he was knocked down by a motor cycle bearing registration No. KL5 F 8461 ridden by the 1st respondent. Alleging negligence against the first respondent and claiming a compensation of 5 lakhs, he filed OP No. 22333/99 before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. The first respondent,the owner cum rider of M.A.C.A No. 1101 OF 2004 2 the motor cycle remained absent and was set ex-parte by the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent, insurer of the offending motor cycle admitted the policy. Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 2nd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that accident occurred due to negligence of the first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 37,250/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance company. 4. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first 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? M.A.C.A No. 1101 OF 2004 3 5. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under: Treatment expenses : Rs. 1000 Transportation : Rs. 500 Bystander expenses : Rs. 1000 Extra nourishment : Rs. 1000 Pain and suffering : Rs. 1000 Disability caused :Rs.24750 ---------- Total : Rs.37,250 ====== 6. The counsel for the appellant/claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for the disability caused and for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. 7. The claimant was a boy aged 11 at the time of accident. Therefore the Tribunal took the annual income of the claimant notionally as Rs. 15,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 15. The percentage of disability was assessed as 11% as shown in Ext.A9 certificate issued by the Medical Board and Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 24,750/- for the disability caused which appears to be reasonable. We have perused the Ext.A8, the copy of medical certificate which was M.A.C.A No. 1101 OF 2004 4 produced by the counsel for the claimant for our perusal. We are of the view that the percentage of disability adopted by the Tribunal as well as the amount awarded for the disability caused is just and reasonable. 8. No compensation was seen awarded for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Taking into account of injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- would be reasonable for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. 9. As regards, compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable. Therefore, we are not disturbing the same. 10. Thus, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. He is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate cost. The 2nd 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 M.A.C.A No. 1101 OF 2004 5 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 PKK