IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 312 of 2007() ---------------------- OP(MV).671/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA, WAYNAD .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------ ABDUL MUTHALIB, S/O.KUNJABDULLA, AYIYAR HOUSE, PINANGODE M.H. BNAGAR, VENGAPPALLI POST, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.4 -------------------- THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KALPETTA. ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.312 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellant before this Court was the claimant before the Tribunal who sought for compensation in respect of injuries sustained in an accident occurred on 29.11.2001. The appellant was in fact proceeding on a bicycle, and when he reached near Vengappalli Service Co-operative Bank, the bus bearing Registration No.KED 2223, driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured by the Additional fourth respondent, knocked him down causing injuries, which led to the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. The owner and driver of the vehicle chose to remain ex parte and claim was resisted only from the part of the Insurance Company. 2. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW.1 and the documents produced and marked as Exts.A1 to A6 on MACA.No.312 of 2007 2 the side of the claimant. After evaluation of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that the accident was only because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and hence the claim was liable to be compensated by the respondents. 3. The case of the claimant was that he was a coolie, having a monthly income of Rs.4500/-. Though no evidence was adduced to substantiate the income, the Tribunal reckoned Rs.2500/- as notional monthly income. It was contended, with reference to Ext.A6 disability certificate, that the claimant had suffered permanent disability to an extent of 6%. However, the said certificate was not chosen to be proved by examining the Doctor. In such circumstances, the Tribunal chose to reckon only 3% as the permanent disability. Taking note of the age of the claimant as 18 years, the appropriate multiplier was fixed as '18' and the compensation for the permanent disability, as noted above, was fixed as Rs.13,608/-. The Tribunal awarded some amounts under other permissible heads MACA.No.312 of 2007 3 as well, such as Rs.280/- towards 'loss of earning'; Rs.600/- towards 'transport to hospital'; Rs.500/- towards 'extra nourishment'; Rs.250/- towards 'Damage to clothing and articles'; Rs.120/- towards 'bystander's expenses'; Rs.4600/- towards 'Medical Expenses'; Rs.5000/- towards 'pain and suffering', thus totalling the amount to Rs.24,958/- as compensation, which was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, of course, giving credit to the amount, if any, ordered to be paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are on the lower side, whereas the learned counsel for the Insurer submits that the award does not call for any interference, the same having been passed on the basis of the materials available on record. 5. Going by the facts and figures, we find that while awarding compensation under various heads, the Tribunal MACA.No.312 of 2007 4 has not awarded any amount towards the 'loss of amenities and enjoyment in life', despite the fact that the Tribunal has accepted the version of the claimant that there was permanent disability at least to an extent of 3%. In the circumstances, we award a sum of Rs.5000/- under this head. 6. With regard to the 'loss of earning', the injuries sustained and consequences resulted would definitely have made the claimant to abstain from the work, at least for a period of two months. Since the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income as Rs.2100/-, a sum of Rs.4200/- ought to have been paid under this head. After deducting the amount of Rs.280/- already granted, the appellant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.3920/- under this head. 7. We also find that the amount awarded by the Tribunal as Rs.5000/- towards 'pain and suffering' is also on the lower side, in view of the nature of injuries sustained and the permanent disability caused to the claimant. We award a further sum of Rs.2500/- under this head, as well. MACA.No.312 of 2007 5 8. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get a further sum of Rs.11,420/- and the said amount as well as the amount already awarded by the Tribunal will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. We direct the respondent Insurance Company, to deposit the said amount with interest, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed in part. No cost. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.