IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 368 of 2010()
1. M.RAMESH,S/O.MANI AGED 43 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.MUHAMMED, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN AGE NOT
... Respondent
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN
For Respondent :SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :27/05/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. 368 of 2010
------------------------------------------------------
Dated: MAY 27, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
In this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act the
claimant in OP(MV) 1030/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, challenges the judgment and award of
the Tribunal dated August 26, 2009 awarding a compensation of
Rs.56,550/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the
injuries sustained in a motor accident.
2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: The
claimant was aged 43 at the time of the accident and used to earn
Rs.5000/- per month, according to him, doing coolie work. On
December 9, 2005 at about 1.30 a.m. the claimant was walking from
Perumanna to Pantheerankavu and when he reached at Parakandam
junction, a mini bus bearing registration No.KL-11-N-5134 came at a
high speed and and knocked him down. The claimant sustained
serious injuries. According to the claimant the accident occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the offending mini lorry by its
driver. The 1st respondent as the owner and the 2nd respondent as
the insurer of the offending mini lorry are jointly and severally liable
to pay compensation to the claimant. The claimant claimed a
M.A.C.A. 368 of 2010
2
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.
3. Respondent No. 1, the owner of the offending vehicle,
remained absent before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent, insurer of
the offending vehicle, filed a written statement admitting the policy.
4. Exts.A1 to A6 series and Ext.C1 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.56,550/- with interest at 7%
per annum from the date of the 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 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 driver of
the offending vehicle is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore,
the only question which arises for consideration is whether the
claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation.
7. The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed
from Ext.A2, copy of the wound certificate, issued from the Medical
College Hospital, Kozhikode:
M.A.C.A. 368 of 2010
3
“supra condylar fracture left femur type 1 compound,
lacerated wound left cheek and multiple injuries all over
body.”
Ext.A3 discharge summary issued from the Medical College Hospital,
shows that he was admitted on 9.12.2005 and discharged on
14.12.2005. Ext.A4 reference card shows that the petitioner was
again admitted in the hospital on 31.8.2007 and discharged on
7.9.2007. Ext.C1 certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board
shows that he has a disability of 8%.
8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.56,550/-.
The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:-
loss of earnings - Rs.3000/- bystander's expenses - 1500/- transport to hospital - 500/- damage to clothing - 250/- treatment expenses - 5000/- pain and suffering - 17500/- disability - 28800/-
9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as
Rs.2000/- and adopted a multiplier of 15 and assessed the disability at
8% and awarded a compensation of Rs.28,800/- for the disability
M.A.C.A. 368 of 2010
4
caused. As the claimant was aged only 43 and was doing coolie work,
we feel that his monthly income can be reasonably estimated at
Rs.2500/-. The percentage of disability assessed as well as the
multiplier 15 adopted are not seriously challenged. Therefore for the
disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of
Rs.36,000/- (8% of 2500 x 12 x 15). Thus on this count the claimant
is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.7200/-.
10. Towards loss of earnings, the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.3000/- i.e. for 1= months at the rate of
Rs.2000/- per month. We have fixed the monthly income of the
claimant as Rs.2500/-. The nature of the injuries sustained by him
shows that the claimant must have been disabled for three months.
Therefore towards loss of earnings, he is entitled to a compensation of
Rs.7500/- (2500 x 3), i.e. an additional compensation of Rs.4500/-.
11. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads,
we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing
the same.
12. There is another aspect. The Tribunal awarded interest at
the rate of 7% per annum which appears to be very low. We feel that
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum would be reasonable.
13. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation
M.A.C.A. 368 of 2010
5
of Rs.11,700/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation 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/-