IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 129 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.638/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT -------------------------------- PARAMESWARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEKKEMEKKATTU, THENNATHOORKARA, KODIKKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. LATHA MATHEW, CHENATTU HOUSE, CIVIL LANE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM. 2. KURIAN, S/O.THOMAS, KANNIKULATHIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., PALARIVATTOM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.129 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.638/2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. He sustained the following injuries in a motor accident that occurred on April 12, 2003 at about 3.30 p.m. : 1. Compound segmental fracture Tibia with fracture fibula right leg. 2. Fracture dislocation Rt. forearm. 3. Fracture ulna ( R) 4. Fracture 4 & 5 metacarpal ( Rt) hand 5. Fracture zygoma & floor of orbit and lachrymal gland injury ( Rt) eye with eye lid tear. 2. The accident happened while the claimant was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL 7.F/1242, it dashed against a Maruthi van bearing Reg.No.KL 7.A.A. 2404 driven by the second respondent. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,39,000/-. MACA.No.129/2006 2 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the policy holder of the vehicle and the owner cum driver of the offending Maruthi van remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending van filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the contesting third respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruthi van by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,81,317/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. 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 Insurance Company. 6. 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 MACA.No.129/2006 3 question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 7. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under : Transportation - Rs. 3,000/- Damage to clothing - Rs. 250/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 1,000/- Bystander exp. - Rs. 9,000/- Treatment exp. - Rs.57, 067/- Future treatment exp. - Rs. 10,000/- Pain and suffering & Loss of amenities of life- Rs.25,000/- Disability - Rs.66,000/- Loss of earnings - Rs.10,000/- 8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the disability caused, for the pain and suffering endured and on other heads. He pointed out that no compensation was awarded for the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.2,500/- and took the percentage of disability as 20% and adopted a multiplier of 11 and awarded Rs. 66,000/- for the disability caused. Claimant was an agriculturist aged 52 earning Rs.4,000/- per month, according to him. Ext.A9, the certificate of disability, shows that he MACA.No.129/2006 4 has suffered a disability of 30%. Taking into consideration the age of the claimant and as there was no evidence to prove his income, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in taking his monthly income as Rs. 2,500/- and taking his disability as 20%. Therefore, towards disability caused, the claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- for the pain and suffering endured and for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life which appears to be very low. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for the pain and suffering endured and Rs. 20,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life would be reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. 11. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per annum which appears to be very low. The claimant is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also MACA.No.129/2006 5 for the enhanced compensation. 12. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation and proportionate cost. The third 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 sv. MACA.No.129/2006 6