IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 782 of 2010()
1. LINO VARGHESE, AGED 25 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SR.OPERATION MANAGER
... Respondent
2. M.K.MUKUNDAN, S/O.KUTTAPPA KAIMAL,
3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :03/06/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI JJ.
---------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A NO. 782 OF 2010
----------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,
the claimant in OP(MV) No. 1777/2003 on the file of Additional
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam challenges the
judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 23.6.2009 awarding a
compensation of Rs. 2,93,927/- to the claimant for the loss caused
to him 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 18 at the time of accident and he
is a B tech degree holder. On May 22, 2003 at 4.45 p.m, the
claimant was cycling along with southern side of Kakkanadu-
Palarivattom road and when he reached near Colony bus stop a
tanker lorry came at a high speed from behind and knocked him
down. The claimant sustained very serious injuries. According to
the claimant the accident occurred due to the negligence on the
part of the driver of the offending lorry, the 2nd respondent. The 1st
M.A.C.A NO. 782 OF 2010
2
respondent as the owner, the 2nd respondent as the driver and 3rd
respondent as the insurer of the offending lorry are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
3. The 1st and 2nd respondents, the owner and driver of the
offending lorry respectively remained absent and were set ex-parte
by the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, the insurer of the offending
lorry filed written statement admitting the policy and further
contended that there was also negligence on the part of the
claimant.
4. PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A9 were
marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No
evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent. On an
appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of
Rs. 2,93,927/- with interest at the rate of 8% 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.
M.A.C.A NO. 782 OF 2010
3
5. Heard the counsel for the claimant. No notice was issued
to the respondents as on going through the judgment of the
Tribunal, we felt that the appeal can be disposed of even without
issuing notice to the respondents.
6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal
that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the
2nd respondent, the driver of the offending lorry 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, the copy of the wound certificate issued from the
Medical Centre Hospital, Ernakulam.
“Abrasions on right side of face, on left ankle, extensive
abrasion on left thigh, left knee, laceration on left ankle, extensive
degloving injury of right thigh, right knee posteriorly and fracture
of left acetabulum and inferior public ramas left”. He was admitted
M.A.C.A NO. 782 OF 2010
4
in the hospital on 22.5.2003 and was discharged on 5.7.2003.
Ext.A5 is the treatment certificate issued by the Medical Centre
Hospital, Ernakulam, which shows that the claimant has also
sustained crushing of vastus medialis and lateralis muscles, with
portion of biceps femoris, massive degloving of skin and
subcutaneous tissue anteriorly upto mid thigh and knee. Ext.A6 is
the disability certificate issued by the General Hospital,Ernakulam,
which shows that the claimant is suffering from disability of 20%.
8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs. 2,93,927/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as
under:
i) Disability caused : Rs. 1,15,200
ii)Byestander expense : Rs. 4,500
iii)Loss of amenities : Rs. 10,000
iv)For medicine : Rs. 1,14,600
v) Transport expenses : Rs. 3,000
vi)Extra nourishment : Rs. 5,000
vii)Pain and sufferings : Rs. 25,000
viii)Loss of amenities : Rs. 22,000
in future.
M.A.C.A NO. 782 OF 2010
5
9. The counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of
compensation for disability caused, pain and suffering endured, loss
of amenities and enjoyment of life. Taking into consideration of the
nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment the
claimant has undergone, we feel that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, the claimant is
not entitled to any enhanced compensation. That being so, the
appeal has to be dismissed .
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear
their own cost.
A.K. BASHEER (JUDGE)
P.Q. BARKATH ALI (JUDGE)
pkk
M.A.C.A NO. 782 OF 2010
6