IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 253 of 2005()
1. JAYASANKAR, S/O. DIVAKARA KURUP,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.P.THOMAS,
... Respondent
2. BABU, S/O. JOHNY,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY
For Respondent :SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :30/08/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. 253 of 2005
------------------------------------------------------
Dated: AUGUST 30, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
Appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) 501/1997 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. He was aged 27
at the time of the accident and was employed in Althara Kuries Pvt.
Ltd., Irinjalakuda, earning a monthly salary of Rs.2365/-. He
sustained the following injuries in a motor accident that occurred on
December 12, 1996 at about 8.15 p.m.
“1. Irregular lacerated wound over outer aspect of right knee.
2. Compound comminuted fracture shaft of femur right.
3. Comminuted fracture patella right with open knee injury.”
2. The accident happened while the motorcycle bearing
registration No.KEH 4301 in which he was pillion riding, he was
knocked down by the bus bearing registration No.KL-8/5900 driven by
the 2nd respondent at Chevoor. Alleging negligence against the 2nd
respondent, the claimant filed the OP before the Tribunal under
Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.8
lakhs.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the
offending bus, remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd
M.A.C.A. 253 of 2005
2
respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, filed a written
statement admitting the policy, but contended that that there was
also negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.
4. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A19 were
marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. On the side
of the contesting 3rd respondent, Ext.B1 was marked. On an
appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident happened
due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and awarded a total
compensation of Rs.2,60,446/- with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost.
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 Insurance Company.
6. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as
under:
loss of earnings Rs.6000/- transportation 600/- extra nourishment and wages to attendant. 4900/- treatment 84357 + 9989/- pain and suffering 15000/- permanent disability and loss of earning capacity 129600/- loss of amenities 10000/-
7. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the
M.A.C.A. 253 of 2005
3
compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, for pain
and suffering endured by the claimant and for the disability caused.
8. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as
Rs.2000/-, the percentage of disability as 30% and adopted a
multiplier of 18 and awarded Rs.1,29,600/- for the disability caused.
As the claimant was employed in a company, we feel that his monthly
income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.2500/-. The percentage of
disability assessed by the Tribunal as well as the multiplier adopted are
not seriously challenged. Thus calculated, for the disability caused the
claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,62,000/-. Thus on this
count he is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.32400/-.
9. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.15000/- for the
pain and suffering endured by the claimant, which appears to be quite
inadequate. Taking into account the nature of the injuries sustained,
we feel that an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be
reasonable on this count.
10. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for
the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Having regard to the
nature of the injuries sustained, we feel that an additional
compensation of Rs.10,000/- 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.
M.A.C.A. 253 of 2005
4
11. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation
of Rs.52400/-. He 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 2nd 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/-