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 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 100 of 2005(C) ----------------------- OPMV.1471/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT ----------------------- MERCILY THOMAS, S/O.K.M.THOMAS, K.P.1/1395 WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND ALL SAINTS' COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (NOW RESIDING AT KOTTAKATTU VELI, NEAR MOOLEPARAMBU, AVALUKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-6). BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. V.M.KUNJALI, AZAD MANZIL, WEST VELIYATHUNAD P.O., ALANGAD, ALWAYE. 2. MRS.P.CHANDIHINI, T.C.32/1516, CHACKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.J.KURIAN, S/O.OUSEPH JOSEPH, KARUMATTATHIL, RAMAPURAM, CHANGANACHERRY. 4. B.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.BALACHANDRAN, MUDUMPIL VEEDU, KAIRALI ROAD, CHACKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MULLAPPILLY, PERUMBAVOOR. 6. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, L.M.S. COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.M.HUSAIN FOR R2 SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R5 SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No.100 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1471/1995 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 16th December 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.12,000/- 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 : The claimant was aged 30 and was employed as Stenographer in the office of Air Port Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. On March 15, 1995 at about 8.a.m., the claimant was travelling in a tempo van bearing Reg.No.KVT 250 from Thiruvananthapuram to Ernakulam. When he reached at Neerkunnam near Ambalapuzha, a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL 17/1993 driven by the second respondent came at a high speed from the opposite direction and dashed against the tempo MACA.No.100/2005 2 van in which the claimant was travelling. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending mini lorry by second respondent. First respondent as the owner, second respondent as the driver and third respondent as the insurer of the offending mini lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. The owner, driver and insurer of the tempo van in which the claimant was travelling were impleaded as additional respondents 4, 5 and 6 respectively. Only respondents 3 and 6, the insurers of the respective vehicles contested the matter. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending mini lorry filed a written statement admitting the policy, but contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo van. The sixth respondent, the insurer of the offending tempo van admitted the policy, but contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the mini lorry. 4. Claimant was examined as PW1 and one witness PW2 was also examined on his side and Exts.A1 to A28 were marked before the MACA.No.100/2005 3 Tribunal. On the side of the contesting respondents 3 and 6, RW1 was examined. Ext.B1 was marked. Exts.X1 to X3 were also marked. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending mini lorry by second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,000/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Companies. 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 ? 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 12,000/-. The break up of the award amount is as under : Loss of earning -Rs. 5,000/- Transportation charges -Rs. 500/- Damage to clothing -Rs. 250/- Medical expenses -Rs. 1,000/- MACA.No.100/2005 4 Pain and suffering -Rs. 5,000/- ------------------ Rs. 11,750/- Rounded off to Rs. 12,000/- ============ 8. The counsel for the claimant would argue that the compensation awarded is very low as the claimant sustained head injury and that he suffered serious disability. We find no force in the above contention. The case of the claimant is that after the accident, due to the injury sustained, he suffered some mental illness and that he was unable to continue his job as Stenographer in the office of Airport Authority of India. No document was produced by the claimant before the Tribunal to show that as a result of the injury sustained in the accident, he suffered mental illness and was discharged from the employment. Further, from Exts.X1 to X3, the leave records of the claimant and other documents relating to his employment and the salary certificate show that even prior to the accident, she was suffering from mental illness and was undergoing treatment. Therefore, the version of the claimant that due to the injury sustained in the accident, he developed some psychiatric illness cannot be accepted. That being MACA.No.100/2005 5 so, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in rejecting the contention of the claimant that due to the injury sustained in the accident, he developed psychiatric illness. Therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation towards the alleged disability caused. Regarding the compensation under other heads, we also find the same to be reasonable. Therefore, we are of the view that the claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. That being so, the Appeal has to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.100/2005 6