IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 2083 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.989/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- MINOR RESHMA, D/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, REP. BY HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. SANKARAN, KIZHAKKAVEEDU, KUMARANELLUR P.O., WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SIDHARTHARATHAN, NO.34, DASHYAM REDDY, 2ND STREET, OTTERI,CHENNAI. 2. SIDHARTHAN, S/O. BALANKUTTY, MAMBETTA HOUSE, KADIKKAD, CHERI. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, C.V. JUNCTION, AMBADI BUILDING, PONNANI. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 2083 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JULY 14, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is a girl aged 9. She sustained type III compound comminuted fracture of both bones of right leg with fragment loss and crush injury below knee with loss of muscles and tissues in a motor accident which occurred on November 20, 2000 at about 4.30 p.m.. While she was walking along Veliyam kode - Eramangalam public road, she was knocked down by a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 01/9353 ridden by he 2nd respondent. Alleging negligence against the 2nd respondent, she through her next friend father filed OP(MV) 989/2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, under sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs.1,76,500/-. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the rider of the offending motorcycle, remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the offending motorcycle, filed a written statement admitting the policy. 3. PW.1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked M.A.C.A.2083 of 2005 2 on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. On the side of the contesting 3rd respondent, Ext.B1 was makred. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.36,200/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. 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 claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation. 6. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.36,200/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- transportation to hospital - Rs.500/- extra nourishment - 1,000/- damage to clothings - 500/- medical expenses - 7,700/- bystander's expenses - 1,000/- pain and suffering - 12,000/- M.A.C.A.2083 of 2005 3 disability (1500x12x15x5/100) - 13,500/- 7. The Counsel for the appellant/claimant sought enhancement of the compensation awarded for the disability caused and on other heads. Ext.A7 certificate of disability issued by the doctor shows that the claimant has suffered disability of 10%. The Tribunal took the percentage of disability as 5% and adopted a multiplier of 15 and too the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1500/- and awarded Rs.13500/- as compensation for the disability caused. The Apex Court has held in Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another ( 2008 ACJ 1488) that even a Coolie may be earning Rs.100/- per day. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision, we feel that the monthly income of the claimant can be reasonably fixed at Rs.2000/-. The percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal as 5% and the multiplier adopted as 15 appears to be reasonable. Thus calculated, for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.18000/-. Thus, on this count she is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4500/-. 8. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for loss of amenities of life. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- M.A.C.A.2083 of 2005 4 would be reasonable on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. 9. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.14500/-. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 7% per annum which is very low. The claimant is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and for the enhanced compensation 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. 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 mt/-