IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 157 of 2008(D) -------------------------------- OPMV.1704/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT : ----------------------------- N.P.MOHANDAS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.PALANI ACHARI, PUTHENPURAVEETTIL, NARIYAANIPOIKA, KARUKACHAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.) SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.ARUL KUMAR.P SRI.BIJIMON C.CHERIAN SRI.LOWEL CHERIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------------- 1. ANILAL, KANNUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, NEAR N.S.S. HOSPITAL, KARUKACHAL P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 2. LEELAKUTTY AMMA, ROSE BHAVAN, KOOTHRAPPALLY, KARUKACHAL P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 157 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in OP(MV) 1704/05. The claimant, a gold smith by profession as well as owner cum driver of the autorickshaw, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.63,500/- with 7% interest. Aggrieved by that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would strongly contend before me that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the disability at all and awarded an inadequate compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that for bystanders expenses, extra nutritious food and transportation the Tribunal has given more compensation than what is claimed and that itself is an indicative of the factum of excessive compensation awarded in the case. 3. I have applied my mind carefully to the submissions made by both sides. First I shall deal with the contentions of the MACA No. 157/08 2 learned counsel for the Insurance Company. I feel there is some force in the her contention for the reason that the Tribunal should always give reasons why it is granting more compensation than what has been asked for. Though it is not specifically stated, a perusal of para.12 of the award would reveal that the claimant had sustained fracture of the femur and had undergone inpatient treatment for 25 days. There was close reduction and internal fixation. Later he had outpatient consultations on many occasions. Thereafter he went to another hospital namely Mercy Nursing Home, Karukachal, where open reduction and internal fixation was done. All these factors would reveal that this man had been visiting the hospital on so many occasions. When it is so, naturally taking into consideration the distance between the places, the Tribunal had granted only proper amount for transport expenses. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the Insurance Company on the point that excessive compensation has been awarded for bystanders expenses i.e. Rs.8,000/- which should be only Rs.3,000/- and not more than that. So far as medical expenses is concerned, a perusal of the award would revel that medical bills are produced for Rs.6,471/- and an MACA No. 157/08 3 amount of Rs.7,000/- is granted. Thus the excessive compensation awarded by the Tribunal would come to Rs.5,000/-. 4. Now I will consider the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is revealed that on account of the injury sustained there is deformity and that the claimant cannot be put on weight and hence the disability is to be assessed at 20%. But taking into consideration the fact that the claimant is an autorickshaw driver by profession in addition to be a goldsmith, as he claims, squatting is necessary for the profession of a gold smith and application of leg is very much necessary for driving the autorickshaw. So a minimum disability of 10% can be taken into consideration in these types of cases. When Rs.2,000/- is taken as his income as fixed by the Tribunal and 10% as the disability and 13 as the multiplier, the disability compensation would come to Rs.31,200/-. I feel atleast a sum of Rs.5,000/- has to be granted towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Thus the total compensation would come to Rs.36,200/-. Out of this, Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards disability plus loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Deducting Rs.5,000/-, which is already granted as excessive compensation for bystanders MACA No. 157/08 4 expenses, it would come to Rs.11,200/- as additional compensation. On all other heads, the Tribunal has been very liberal, which does not call for any interference. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.11,200/- with 7 % interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 157/08 5