IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1837 of 2007()
1. AMRUTHA SANKAR,CHENGALATHU HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANTON BIJU A.J,ASARIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. SINULAL,THALATHUR HOUSE,EROOR KARA,
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE ROAD
For Petitioner :SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :11/08/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A. Nos. 1837, 1843 & 1885 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
These appeal are preferred against the award passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV)
Nos.1709/03, 1462/03 & 1464/03. The Tribunal has awarded
Rs.31,730/- in OP(MV) 1462/03, Rs.3,460/- in OP(MV) 1464/03 and
Rs.3,530/- in OP(MV) 1709/03.
2. Two vehicles namely a car and a KSRTC bus were
involved in the accident. The car was a private car. The Tribunal
found that the driver of the car is responsible for the accident. It also
found that the occupants of the car were passengers who can be
classified as gratuitous passengers and therefore in the light of New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [2003 (1) KLT 165 (SC)]
and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (4) SCC
404] held that they are not covered by the policy for the reason that
the policy was only Act only policy.
3. So far as that point is concerned, admittedly being the
passengers of a private car and the car being insured only on the
MACA No. 1837/07 & Conn. Cases 2
basis of an Act only policy, the finding of the Tribunal on that point
cannot be disturbed.
4. As far as quantum is concerned, Rs.31,730/- is awarded
in OP(MV) 1462/03. It can be seen that the claimant had sustained
two lacerated wounds on the wrist and dorsal aspect of the right
hand, one laceration on the little finger and laceration of 20×1 cms in
the forehead. She was treated as inpatient in the hospital from
10.9.03 till 26.9.03. The Tribunal also considered the treatment
certificate. It fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.2,000/- and
awarded compensation under each and every head. The Tribunal
had taken note of the period of treatment, the nature of injuries and
had awarded a proper compensation even for loss of amenities and
enjoyment in life. I find that the award is reasonable and that it does
not call for any interference.
5. So far as OP(MV) 1709/03 is concerned, the claimant
had only tenderness on the shoulder. He was treated as inpatient in
the hospital for only one day and had expended a sum of Rs.1,022/-
for treatment. The Tribunal awarded him Rs.3,530/-. The fact that
he was in the hospital for three days coupled with some contusion
and tenderness, it would have prevented him from doing any work for
MACA No. 1837/07 & Conn. Cases 3
a period of two weeks. So I feel this is a fit case where an additional
compensation of Rs.1,000/- can be awarded as compensation.
6. So far as OP(MV) 1464/03 is concerned, the claimant
had tenderness on the right shoulder, forehead and right knee. The
treatment expenses were Rs.956/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.3,460/-. Considering the nature of the injuries, I feel atleast sum
of Rs.1,000/- more has to be awarded.
In the result, M.A.C.A. No. 1843/07 is dismissed.
M.A.C.A. Nos. 1837/07 & 1885 /07 are partly allowed. The
claimants in M.A.C.A. Nos. 1837/07 & 1885 /07 are awarded a sum
of Rs.1,000/- each as additional compensation with 8.5% interest on
the said sum also from the date of petition till realisation.
Respondents 1and 2 are directed to deposit that amount also along
with the other award amount within 90 days from today.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No. 1837/07 & Conn. Cases 4