IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 1608 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.343/1998 of IST ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR.K., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, `PRASHEELA', KOZHAMPURATH HOUSE, KOTTOOLI, KOZHIKODE-673 016. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. SHAJI, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, MANNATHIL HOUSE, P.O.MAKKADA, VIA KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE-673 617, (R.C.OWNER AND DRIVER OF VEHICLE OF MOTOR CYCLE KL/11-D-5085). 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.11, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1608 of 2006 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim,J. The claimant before the Tribunal is in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. The accident occurred when he was thrown out from a Motor Cycle in which he was travelling as pillion rider, due to rash and negligent driving by the rider. The Tribunal found that the rider of the Motor Cycle was negligent in causing the accident. The appellant sustained very severe head injury with fracture on the mastoid part of right temporal bone with cerebral oedema. The appellant was aged 27 years at the time of accident. He was working as an employee in a private firm. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.28,100/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company. The appellant contended that the claim petition was before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode and it was subsequently transferred to the First Additional District Court/First Additional M.A.C.T., Kozhikode, without his knowledge. Therefore he could MACA.1608/06 2 file the documents only when the case was posted for evidence. The appellant had produced copy of I.A. 48/06 filed before the Tribunal seeking to accept documents, along with this appeal as Annexure-A1. The Tribunal had dismissed that I.A. on 7.1.2006 and passed the award on that date itself, is the contention. 3. On a perusal of Annexure-A1 interim application we notice that the appellant had produced 17 documents along with the I.A. before the Tribunal. The appellant, as directed by this Court, had produced copies of the important documents, which he had produced before the Tribunal. We notice that the C.T. Scan report dated 12.6.1997 issued from the Medical College Hospital, Calicut as well as the Disability certificate issued by the Lecturer Department of E.N.T., Medical College, Calicut. The contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal had failed in awarding any amount towards permanent disability taking into account of the above said documents. 4. On a perusal of the documents produced, it is noticed that the Scan report had suggested fracture of temporal bone with contusion of the temporal lobe of the brain, along with interhemispheric fissure, bleeding with diffused cerebral oedema, etc:. The disability certificate revealed that a consequence of these injuries the appellant had mild deafness MACA.1608/06 3 and total 'Anosmia' (absence of smell). His hearing was recovered with treatment, but loss of smell is total and persistent. There is 'Agnosia' (loss of taste) as a consequence of this. The extent of permanent disability is assessed at 10%. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company had objected accepting the additional documents ins evidence. He vehemently contended that the claimant should be put to strict proof regarding those documents and its acceptance without sufficient proof is improper. But on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that this is a case where the appellant was prevented from adducing proper evidence before the Tribunal. On our considered opinion we are not inclined to remand the matter for taking fresh evidence, because we feel that the matter can be settled in this appeal itself based on the above said two documents, considering the interest of justice and in order to avoid unnecessary delay. Fair and reasonable compensation based on those documents can be awarded, is our opinion. 6. Since there is evidence to the effect that the appellant was working in a private firm we fix monthly income of the appellant at Rs.1500/-. Considering the age of the appellant at the time of accident the multiplier to be taken is 18. Calculated MACA.1608/06 4 on this basis the appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.32,400/- (Rs.1500 x 12 x 18 x 10%). We are also inclined to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, considering the permanent difficulties and discomforts. Thus we are inclined to award an additional sum of Rs.42,400/-. It is contended by the appellant that the rate of interest at 6% awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate. We are inclined to increase the rate of interest from 6% to 7.5%. 5. In the result the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the total compensation of Rs.28,100/- awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs.42,400/-. The original compensation as well as the enhancement will carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. The 2nd respondent/insurance company is directed to make payment of the amount within a period of three months. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb