IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1375 of 2010()
1. M.R.SATHYAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ALICE SAJEEV, W/O.P.K.SAJEEV,
... Respondent
2. GEORGE MATHEW @ GEORGE,
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :03/09/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A.No.1375 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.681/2005 on the file of
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. He sustained the
following injuries in a motor accident that occurred on November 18,
2004 at about 5.15 p.m.:
1. Segmental fracture ( R) femur
2. Displaced fracture ( R) patella
3. Rolando’s fracture ( R) hand
4. Fracture head of ( R) third metacarpal
5. Deep lacerated wound ( R) knee
6. Lacerated wound over occipital region
and over ( R) leg.
7. Contusion on ( L) side of chest with
lacerated wound anterior chest wall.
2. The accident happened while the claimant was riding the
motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-6/8753 along Thevakkal-
Kangarappady road and reached near Kangarappady, a bus bearing
Reg.No.KL-7/Z 5004 driven by the second respondent came in a rash
and negligent manner and knocked him down. Alleging negligence
against the second respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the
Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a
MACA.No.1375/2010 2
compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the 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 further contended that the accident occurred
due to the negligence of the claimant.
4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the
side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by
the contesting third respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of
evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the offending bus by second respondent and awarded a
compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/- with interest @ 7.5% 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. On going
through the judgment and award of the Tribunal, we felt that this
appeal can be disposed of even without issuing notice to the
MACA.No.1375/2010 3
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
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 break up of the compensation awarded is as under :
Pain and suffering - Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of amenities and
enjoyment in life - Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of earnings - Rs. 7,500/-
Transportation - Rs. 1,000/-
Extra nourishment - Rs. 1,000/-
Attendant' expenses - Rs. 4,500/-
Treatment expenses - Rs. 26,382/-
Damage to clothing - Rs. 500/-
Disability - Rs. 96,000/-
Future treatment exp. - Rs. 5,000/-
8. The claimant is a painter aged 30 at the time of accident.
His income was taken as Rs. 2500/- per month by the Tribunal. The
claimant has suffered a permanent disability of 40% as seen from
Ext.X1, the certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board. He
has now traumatic stiffness of right knee, shortening of right lower
MACA.No.1375/2010 4
limb, deformity of right ankle and poor grip strength of right hand.
9. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries
sustained and the period of treatment undergone by the claimant and
the above aspects, we feel that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, the claimant is found not
entitled to any enhanced compensation. That being so, we find no
merit in this appeal and the same has to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
sv.
MACA.No.1375/2010 5