IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 99 of 2005()
1. K.P.BABU, S/O.CHATHU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PUTHALATH RAMACHANDRAN,
... Respondent
2. POTHERA ANIL KUMAR,
3. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :26/07/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BAHSEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
M.A.C.A. No. 99 of 2005
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.293 of 1998
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. He
sustained the following injuries in a motor accident, which
occurred on November 11, 1997 at 7 p.m. at Pallikunnu
near Kannur :-
“1) Fracture of right femur.
2) Compound fracture of right tibia.
3) 2 = inches long laceration over the upper lip
and cheek.”
2. According to the claimant, while he was riding his
motor cycle, he was knocked down by a bus bearing
registration No. KL-13/C 3693, driven by the second
respondent. Alleging negligence against the second
respondent, he filed the O.P. under section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act , claiming a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.
MACA 99/2005 2
3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the
offending bus, remained absent before the Tribunal. The
third respondent, the insurer of the offending bus, filed a
written statement, admitting the policy and attributing
negligence on the part of the claimant.
4. On the side of the claimant he was examined as
PW1, the Insurance Surveyor, who has assessed the damage
caused to the claimant’s motor cycle, was examined as PW2
and Exts.A1 to A14 were marked. No evidence was adduced
by the respondents. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of
evidence, found that the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the offending bus by the second
respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,03,100/-
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till
realization. The claimant has now come up in appeal
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
5. Heard the counsel for the claimant and the
counsel for the Insurance Company.
MACA 99/2005 3
6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the
Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence
on the part of the second respondent 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 Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.1,03,100/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as
under :-
Medical expenses : Rs. 42,000/-
Loss of income : Rs. 12,000/-
Pain and sufferings : Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of amenities : Rs. 5,000/-
Transportation expense : Rs. 6,000/-
Permanent disability : Rs. 10,000/-
Hospitalization expenses : Rs. 8,100/-
and bystander's expenses.
--------------------
Total : Rs.1,03,100/-
========
8. The learned counsel for appellant sought
enhancement of compensation for the disability caused.
9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the
claimant as Rs.1,500/-, took the percentage of disability as
MACA 99/2005 4
3%, adopted multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs.10,000/- for
the disability caused. According to the claimant, at the time
of the accident, he was an Electrician and was earning
Rs.4,000/- per month. He produced Ext.A6 salary certificate
issued from Thiruvepathi Mills Ltd., certifying that he was
earning a salary of Rs.3,051/-. Taking into consideration the
above aspect, we feel that his monthly income can
reasonably be fixed at Rs.2,500/-. The doctor has certified
that his permanent disability at 10%, as seen from Ext.A10.
Taking into account the disability as mentioned therein, we
feel that the percentage of disability can be assessed at 5%.
The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 17 is not
seriously challenged. Therefore, for the disability caused
and for the consequential loss of earning power, the
claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,500/-
(Rs.2,500/- x 12 x 17 x 5%). Thus, on this count, the
claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of
Rs.15,500/-.
10. The Tribunal awarded interest only at 9% up to
MACA 99/2005 5
December, 2001, which appears to be not correct. The
claimant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum for the
compensation already awarded as well as the enhanced
compensation from the date of petition till realization.
11. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an
additional compensation of Rs.15,500/-. He is entitled to
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till
realization and proportionate cost. The third respondent
being the insurer of the offending bus, shall deposit the
amount before the Tribunal within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the
claimant. 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.
mn.