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 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 391 of 2010() ---------------------- OPMV.652/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER -------------- N.K.BABU, S/O.KEERAN, NIKATHIL HOUSE, KOVILAKATHUMKADAVU, PALLIPORT, KOCHI TALUK, EKM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 01. 2. SIVAN PILLAI, S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, RAMESH BHAVAN, PANAPPETTY SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DIST. ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.391 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.652/2004 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated January 13, 2009 awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,03,000/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these : On February 3, 2004, the claimant was standing in the Karunagappilly K.S.R.T.C. bus stand waiting for the bus. At that time, a K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15-1441 driven by the second respondent came at a high speed and knocked him down. The claimant sustained serious injuries in the accident. According to the claimant, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by second respondent. Claimant claimed a compensation of M.A.C.A.No.391/2010 2 Rs. 4 lakhs. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement admitting the accident, but contending that there was no negligence on the part of the second respondent, the driver of the bus. 4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,03,000/-. 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 respondents. 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 question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation ? M.A.C.A.No.391/2010 3 7. The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed from Ext.A4, the copy of the discharge card issued from the hospital. Crush injury right foot extending from the lower 1/3rd of right leg to the lateral four toes extending from the medial border to the lateral border whole tendons, muscles, bones exposed and crushed. All toes are crushed. Below knee amputation done. Claimant was admitted in the hospital from February 3, 2004 to February 28, 2004. 8. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,03,000/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under : Pain and suffering - Rs. 20,000/- Loss of earnings for 5 months @ Rs. 2,000/- - Rs. 10,000/- Treatment charges - Rs. 7,000/- Disability caused - Rs.1,56,000/- Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life - Rs. 10,000/- ----------------- Total -Rs. 2,03,000/- ========= 9. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the M.A.C.A.No.391/2010 4 compensation for the disability caused, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, loss of earnings and pain and suffering endured by the claimant. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 2,000/- and adopted a multiplier of 13 and accepted the percentage of disability as 50% as mentioned in Schedule I, part II, Clause 20 of the Workmen Compensation Act as claimant has suffered below knee amputation of right leg and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,56,000/- for the disability caused. 10. The claimant was a fisherman aged 46 as testified by him as PW1. Therefore, we feel that the monthly income of the claimant can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 3,000/-. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 13 and percentage of disability as 50% are not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,34,000/- ( 50% x 3000 x 12 x 13) . Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 78,000/-. 11. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life which appears to be very low. The claimant has M.A.C.A.No.391/2010 5 suffered below knee amputation of right leg. Therefore, for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- would be reasonable. Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. 12. Towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- i.e. for 5 months @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. We have fixed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 3,000/-. Therefore, towards loss of earnings, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- i.e. for 5 months @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. Thus, on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. 13. For the pain and suffering endured by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- which appears to be inadequate as the claimant has suffered below knee amputation of right leg. Therefore, towards pain and suffering we feel that a compensation of Rs.30,000/- would be reasonable. Thus, on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be M.A.C.A.No.391/2010 6 reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. 14. Thus, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,03,000/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 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. M.A.C.A.No.391/2010 7