IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 379 of 2005()
1. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGIND DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :05/11/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NOs. 379 and 407 OF 2005
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
These appeals are preferred against the award of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.
(MV)Nos.291/99 and 292/99 respectively. Petitioner in O.P.
(MV)291/99 was a rider of a motorbike and an advocate by
profession sustained injuries when a KSRTC bus near
Kowdiar junction came from behind and hit on the bike
resulting in injuries to the claimant and damages to the
motorbike for which the other claim petition is filed. The
Tribunal on a consideration of the materials awarded
Rs.5,166/- to the claimant for personal injuries and awarded
a sum of Rs.5,300/- towards damages sustained to the
motorbike. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded both the
claimants have come up in appeal.
2. In the personal injury clause it can be seen from
the award that the claimant had sustained a lacerated wound
on the medial aspect of the right foot measuring 3 x 2 x 1
M.A.C.A. Nos. 379 & 407 OF 2005
-:2:-
cm. He had also tenderness on the right shin measuring 5 x
2 cms. Though no bony injury was found out it is clear from
the documents that he was admitted in the outpatient
department of the Government Hospital Peroorkada and in
the Medical College Hospital. The wound was sutured and
the petitioner was treated with antibiotics and analgesics.
The claimant is an Advocate by profession and he was aged
about 40 years at the time of the accident. When a person
sustains injuries on the foot certainly it would have affected
his mobility and when that wound is sutured he may not be
able to ride a motorbike for some time. Similarly, the
contusion on the shin also would have caused apprehension
in him. The petitioner has only claimed an amount of
Rs.3,500/- as the income per month which cannot be said to
be on the higher side. Similarly being an Advocate by
profession the damage to clothing awarded also appears to
be inadequate. So taking into consideration these aspects
and the fact that he would not have been in a position to
attend the work properly for three to four weeks I am
inclined to enhance the compensation by Rs.3,000/-.
M.A.C.A. Nos. 379 & 407 OF 2005
-:3:-
3. The next question is regarding the damages. It
can be seen from the award that the repairer of the bike
namely Cheeran Automobiles has directly sent the bill to the
Oriental Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.15,461.77
which represents Rs.1,300/- as labour charges and
Rs.14,361/- as cost of spare parts. The Tribunal declined to
grant it on the ground the A.M.V.I. Report pertaining to the
motorbike does not show such type of damages. Explicitly
we know that a motor vehicle inspector’s report is mainly
intended for the purpose of finding out whether there was
any mechanical defect for the vehicle and in the process they
note the other damages superficially and therefore one
cannot hold that the mere non mentioning of some of the
damages by the A.M.V.I would militate against the claimant’s
right. It is true that when a vehicle is hit and it sustains
damages not only the parts which was hit would get
damaged, the other portion too will get damaged if the
impact is very serious. Therefore it was not correct on the
part of the Tribunal to throw away the claim especially when
it was supported by bills. Even if depreciation is granted for
purchase of spareparts and the cost of labour charge is
M.A.C.A. Nos. 379 & 407 OF 2005
-:4:-
included there is nothing wrong in awarding an additional
sum of Rs.5,000/- more towards the damages sustained to
the vehicle. I am awarding enhanced compensation because
the report is supported by bills, vouchers as well as survey
report and one cannot hold that they are concocted
documents for the purpose of preferring the claim.
Therefore from these discussions the claimant in O.P.
(MV)291/99 is awarded an additional compensation of
Rs.3,000/- with 7.5% interest on the said sum from the date
of petition till realisation and the claimant in O.P.(MV)
292/99 is awarded an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- with 6%
interest, being property damages, from the date of petition
till realisation and the KSRTC represented by the first
respondent is directed to pay the amount within a period of
90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-