IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 266 of 2004()
1. THANKAMMA, W/O.DEVASYA, THACHIRAVELY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MATHEW, S/O.CHERIAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, NEAR
... Respondent
2. K.S.R.T.C., TRIVANDRUM.
For Petitioner :SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH
For Respondent :V.V NANDAGOPAL SC.KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :14/06/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. 266 of 2004
------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JUNE 14, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
In this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the
claimant in OP(MV) 1588/1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, challenges the judgment and award of
the Tribunal, dated, January 17, 2003 awarding a compensation of
Rs.1,22,000/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the
injuries sustained by her in a motor accident.
2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: On
January 12, 1995 the claimant was standing on the side of the road
at Pattithanam. At that time she was knocked down by a KSRTC bus
bearing registration No.KLX 5852 driven by he 1st respondent. The
claimant sustained very serious injuries. According to the claimant
the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st
respondent, driver of the offending bus. The 1st respondent as the
driver and the 2nd respondent as the owner of the offending bus are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
3. The respondents filed a written statement admitting the
accident, but contended that the accident occurred due to the
M.A.C.A. 266 of 2004
2
negligence of the claimant.
4. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the claimant
before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 2nd
respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from
the date of petition till realisation. The claimant has now come up in
appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the
counsel for the 2nd respondent.
6. The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed
from Ext.A5 copy of the wound certificate:
“Severe crush injury on the right upper limb extending from the
wrist to the axilla and swelling of forehead with bleeding from
nose.”
Ext.A9 discharge certificate shows that she had fracture to the
humerous also. Ext.A7 certificate of disability shows that the claimant
has a disability of 50%.
7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,22,000/-.
The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:-
M.A.C.A. 266 of 2004
3
pain and suffering - Rs.15,000/-
loss of earnings - 9,000/-
treatment expenses - 5,000/-
bystander's expenses - 1,500/-
transportation - 500/-
disability - 81,000/-
loss of amenities - 10,000/-
8. The Counsel for the appellant/claimant sought enhancement
of the compensation for the disability caused. The Tribunal took the
monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1500/- and took the percentage
of disability as 30% and adopted a multiplier of 15 and awarded
Rs.81,000/- for the disability caused. The income of the claimant as a
construction worker assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.1500/- appears to
be reasonable. The claimant was aged 35 at the time of the accident.
Her entire muscles of the right hand was torn off. Therefore 50%
disability assessed by the Medical Board in Ext.A7 appears to be
reasonable. Further, the Tribunal did not say any reason for reducing
the percentage of disability. As the claimant was aged only 35, the
proper multiplier that can be adopted is 17. Thus calculated, for the
disability caused and for the consequential loss of earning power, the
claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- (1500 x 12 x
17 x 50%).
M.A.C.A. 266 of 2004
4
9. There is another aspect in this case. The injury sustained on
her right hand caused serious disfigurement. Therefore for the loss of
future prospects, we feel that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be
reasonable. As regards the compensation awarded under other
heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not
disturbing the same.
10. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation
of Rs.82,000/-. She is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum for the
enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realisation and
proportionate cost. The 2nd respondent being the owner 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/-