IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 2358 of 2009() ----------------------------------- OPMV.1335/2002 of PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ RAJU KUMAR, S/O.APPUTTY, AGED 35 YEARS, NEDUVIL KANDIYIL HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O. PALAYAMKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. DEVADAS. O., AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT 8/274, ORALAKKOTTU HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, TRIPURI BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR.JACOB ABRAHAM, SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH . R2 BY ADV. MR.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2358 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV)No.1335/2002. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.16,000/=. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, owner and insurance company were heard. I feel that some enhancement is necessary which I will decide here and the matter has to go back to the Tribunal to find out whether there is any contributory negligence or not. The finding of contributory negligence is absolutely on conjectures and surmisers and I do not know why the Tribunal after making it clear that the respondent would be liable to pay 50% of the compensation towards the operative portion said so that in the interest of justice I decline for reducing 50%. It is not a correct approach at all and it requires real consideration. It is true that none of the important documents such as scene mahaser and charge sheet are produced before the court : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2358 OF 2009 and the claimant has also not mounted the box to give any evidence in support of the negligence of the rider of the bike. Therefore on the question of negligence the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. 3. So far as the compensation part is concerned, I had gone through the scan report which would indicate that he had sustained comminuted fracture to facial bones including frontal bone. He was admitted on 14.2.2002 and discharged on 2.3.2002. It is also seen that there was avulsion of two teeth. Avulsion of teeth means that they have been forcibly displaced from the normal position. So, the injury sustained are really of a very serious nature in this matter. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for bystander's expenses and for extra nourishment. I award Rs.1,600/= for bystander's expenses and Rs.1,500/= for extra nourishment. Considering the serious nature of the injury particularly the head injury coupled with large number of fractures to facial bone, I award Rs.4,000/= for pain and sufferings more and Rs.2,000/= more towards loss of amenities and further Rs.2,000/= towards loss of income thus by making an : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2358 OF 2009 additional compensation of Rs.11,100/=. 4. But unfortunately the matter could not be disposed of here for the reason that finding on contributory negligence is called for. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to permit the parties to adduce evidence in support of the contention of negligence. I make it clear that the compensation is enhanced by Rs.11,100/= and the final amount may be determined in accordance with the finding on the question of negligence. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 03.03.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.2358 OF 2009