IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 466 of 2008 ---------------------- OP(MV).140/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------- K.K.VIJAYAN KUNNEL HOUSE, ,MUTTATHUPADY BHAGOM VEROOR, P.O.,CHETHIPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED FIROSE, PUTHUPARAMBU KURISUMOODU P;.O.,CHANGANACHERRY. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD CHANGANACHERRY. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.M. NAJEEB KHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ................................................................................ M.A.C.A. No. 466 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 17th November, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J: Appellant, a pedestrian, was knocked down by a motor cycle, owned and ridden by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent at about 9.00 p.m. on 19.09.2004, causing serious injuries, which led to the claim. 2. The owner cum rider of the motor cycle did not choose to contest the matter and remained ex parte. The claim was resisted only by the insurer. The evidence consists of only the documentary evidence, produced and marked as Exts. A1 to A10 from the part of the claimant/appellant. No oral evidence was adduced by either side. After analysing the materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was only because of the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. 3. With regard to the quantum, the Tribunal, considering M.A.C.A. No. 466 OF 2008 2 the nature of the injuries, as brought to light by the medical records including Ext.A6 the disability certificate, awarded various amounts under permissible heads, fixing the total compensation payable as Rs. 54,000/- and the same was directed to be satisfied with interest @ 7% per annum. The claimant is before this Court, seeking for enhancement of compensation. 4. The learned Counsel for the second respondent submits that the injuries sustained by the claimant have been adequately compensated and that no further enhancement is warranted. The learned Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, submits that the injured was a youth of 36 years, working as a Mason and that while fixing the compensation, the certified extent of permanent disability, i.e., 6% as borne by Ext.A6 disability certificate has been simply given a go-bye, awarding just a lump sum figure of Rs.15,000/-, treating the disability sustained by the claimant as one which would not affect his earning power or reduce amenities and pleasure of life. The learned Counsel further submits that despite his employment M.A.C.A. No. 466 OF 2008 3 and monthly income of Rs.4500/-, brought in evidence with the support of Ext. A10 employment certificate, the Tribunal chose to reckon only Rs.3000/- as the monthly income. Still, no separate amount has been awarded under the head 'permanent disability' in respect of the disability sustained by the claimant/appellant. 5. On going through the materials on record discussed by the Tribunal, we find that fixation of negligence, having not been subjected to challenge from the part of the insurer, has become final. Coming to the question of quantum, we find that the amounts have been awarded by the Tribunal under various heads such as Rs.1000/- towards 'transportation expense', Rs.1000/- towards 'damage to clothing', Rs.3000/- towards 'extra nourishment', Rs.1000/- towards 'by-stander expense', Rs.3000/- towards 'treatment expense', Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of earning', and Rs.15000/- towards 'pain and suffering', which are very much adequate and do not call for any interference. However, in respect of the certified permanent disability of 6% and the consequences resulted, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- and there is no finding or reasoning as to the M.A.C.A. No. 466 OF 2008 4 non-acceptability of Ext.A6. The compensation awarded, taking both these heads together (permanent disability and loss of amenities), granting a lump sum of Rs.15,000/- is on the lower side. We find it fit and proper to have it fixed at Rs.25,000/-. Thus the appellants will be entitled for the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The said amount shall be deposited by the second respondent Insurance Company with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeal is partly allowed. No cost. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk