IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 MACA.No. 1711 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1785/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ---------------------------------- RAJESH P.R., S/O. PRABHAKARAN N., RESIDING AT RAJEE BHAVAN, ATTINKIZHAKKEKARA, VILLUMALA P.O., KULATHUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. S.AJEESHKUMAR, VRINDAVAN, EX-SERVICEMEN'S COLONY, P.O. PACHA, NEDUMANGADU. 2. NAZARUDEEN A., PUTHEN VEEDU, ELAVUPALAM COLONY, P.O. MADATHARA, KOLLAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE, ATTINGAL BRANCH. ADV. MR.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =========================== M.A.C.A. No.1711 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 21st day of May 2010 J U D G M E N T Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1785 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated July 9, 2003, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,31,900/- for the loss caused to the claimant, on account of the injury sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are these:- The claimant was a boy aged 17 at the time of the accident. On August 29, 1999 at about 9.15 a.m., he was travelling in a jeep bearing Registration No.KL/02/B/1332 from Kulathupuzha to Kallara. When they reached at Valavupacha junction, he alighted from the jeep as the M.A.C.A. No.1711 of 2004 -2- jeep showed some fault on the engine. When they were about to get into the jeep a Mini bus bearing Registration No.KL01/C-1348 driven by the 2nd respondent came at a high speed and knocked him down. The claimant sustained serious injuries and his left foot was amputated. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending mini bus by 2nd respondent. 1st respondent as the owner, 2nd respondent as the driver and 3rd respondent as the Insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.5,85,000/-. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and were set ex parte by the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent being the Insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement admitting the policy and further contending that accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant when he attempted to cross the road. M.A.C.A. No.1711 of 2004 -3- 4. The claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on his side. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent before the Tribunal. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,31,900/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.3,000/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd 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. The claimant sustained the M.A.C.A. No.1711 of 2004 -4- following injuries as revealed from Ext.A6 wound certificate and Ext.A8 referral card issued from the hospital. (1) Lacerated injury 10x5 cm over the left knee. (2) Fracture of left foot and crush injury on left foot. (3) Amputation of left foot was done. 7. Ext.A9 is the treatment certificate. Ext.A11 is the certificate of disability shows that the claimant has now a disability of 30%. 8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,31,900/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Pain and sufferings : Rs.20,000/- Transport to hospital : Rs.3,000/- Extra nourishment : Rs.5,000/- Damage to clothing : Rs.500/- Hospitalisation and treatment : Rs.5,000/- Compensation for loss of studies : Rs.3,000/- As per Medical bills : Rs.9,000/- Disability compensation : Rs.86,400/- (1500x12x16x30/100) ------------------- Total : Rs.1,31,900/- ======== 9. The learned counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for the disability caused, M.A.C.A. No.1711 of 2004 -5- for pain and suffering, for the loss of amenities in life, for the disfigurement caused and loss of future prospects. The Tribunal took the income of the claimant as Rs.1,500 per month and took the percentage of disability as 30% as stated in Ext.A11 and adopted a multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs.86,400/- for the disability caused. The claimant was aged 17 at the time of the accident. As he is an able bodied person, we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably estimated at Rs.2,000/-. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal and the percentage of disability are not seriously challenged. Thus, calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,15,200/-. Thus, on this account the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.28,800/-. 10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering injured by the claimant. Taking into consideration the fact that his left foot was amputated, we feel that Rs.30,000/- would be a reasonable compensation on this M.A.C.A. No.1711 of 2004 -6- count. Thus, on this account, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 11. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for the disfigurement caused due to amputation of left foot. The claimant has produced photographs to prove the same and as there is serious disfigurement, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- on this count would be reasonable. 12. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for future prospects and for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The claimant was aged only 17 at the time of the accident and amputation of his left foot has seriously affected his future prospects in life. Taking into consideration the age of the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs.25,000/- would be reasonable for the loss of future prospects. The amputation of his left foot has caused serious loss of amenities to the claimant for which we feel that, a compensation of Rs.25,000/- would be M.A.C.A. No.1711 of 2004 -7- reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. 13. Thus, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.98,800/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 3rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimant. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. jvt