IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 980 of 2004()
1. MINOR ANSABA, D/O.MUHAMMAD HANEEFA.
... Petitioner
2. NASEEMA, W/O.MUHAMMAD HANEEFA.
Vs
1. THE MANAGING PARTNER, MAYIL VAHANAM
... Respondent
2. R.HARIDAS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, RESIDING
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
4. THE MANAGING PARTNER, MAYIL VAHANAM
5. NITHYANANDAN, S/O.MANI, RESIDING
6. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH
For Respondent :SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :12/11/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~=
M.A.C.A. No. 980 of 2004
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~=
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 1602 of 1999
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. In
this appeal she challenges the judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated October 21, 2003 awarding a compensation of
Rs.3,42,800/- for the loss caused to her on account of the
injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on
November 28, 1998 at about 5.30 p.m. at Vatanamkurissi.
2. The accident happened while she was travelling in a
bus bearing registration No.KL-9/1383, driven by the 2nd
respondent, along the Kolappully Pattambi road. When the bus
reached at Vadanamturissi it collided head on with another
bus bearing registration No.KL-9/1452, driven by the 5th
respondent, as a result of which she sustained the following
injuries:-
1) Lacerated wound 12 x 0.5 cm. on right frontal
MACA 980/2004 2
area extending to temple exposing fractured
skull.
2) Lacerated wound 1 x 0.25 cm. near right side of
nose.
3) Abrasions below right eye.
4) Head injury.
5) Depressed fracture of right fronto-temporal
bones with underlying contusion.
3. The claimant was aged 13 at the time of the accident.
The claimant being a minor, she filed the O.P. before the
Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act through
her next friend mother claiming a compensation of
Rs.6,47,500/- alleging negligence against the drivers of both
the vehicles.
4. Respondents 1 to 3 are the owner, driver and insurer
of the bus in which the claimant was travelling. Respondents 4
to 6 are the owner, driver and insurer of the other bus.
Respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 remained absent before the
Tribunal. Respondents 3 and 6 are the same Insurance
Company. They filed a written statement admitting the policies
MACA 980/2004 3
of the respective vehicles involved in the accident. The
claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A12 (c) were
marked on her side. No evidence was adduced by the
respondents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal
found that the accident occurred due to negligence of drivers
of both the buses i.e., respondents 2 and 5 and awarded a
compensation of Rs.3,42,800/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till realization and a cost of Rs.1,000/-. The
claimant has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and
learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the
Tribunal that the claimant sustained the above mentioned
injuries in the accident and that the accident occurred due to
the negligence of respondents 2 and 5 is not seriously
challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question, which
arises for consideration, is whether the claimant is entitled to
any enhanced compensation.
MACA 980/2004 4
7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.3,42,800/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as
under:-
Transportation : Rs. 2,000/-
Extra nourishment : Rs. 2,500/-
Damage to clothing : Rs. 300/-
Treatment and : Rs. 53,000/-
bystander's expenses.
Future treatment and : Rs. 10,000/-
bystander's expenses.
Pain and suffering : Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of amenities and : Rs.2,50,000/-
Enjoyment of life.
------------------
Total : Rs.3,42,800/-
=======
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant
sought enhancement of compensation for loss of amenities and
future prospects in life. The learned counsel submits that no
compensation was awarded towards disability caused, for
disfigurement and for reduced marriage prospects .
9. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,50,000/- for the loss of
amenities and enjoyment in life, but it was actually
compensation for the disability caused. In Ext.A8 certificate of
MACA 980/2004 5
disability issued by Professor of Neurosurgery, Medical
College Hospital, Thrissur it is certified that the claimant has a
disability of 37% and also visual disability of 45%. Her
disability was assessed by a Medical Board attached to the
Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, as directed by this Court
by order dated September 3, 2010. Medical Board certified
that she has permanent neurological disability of 60%. It is
also certified that the claimant has now the following
disabilities:-
Higher mental functions:-
Reduced memory. Reduced speech fluency of
comprehension. Poor judgment. Reduced attention
and registration.
Cranial Nerves:-
Double vision especially on left gaze due to
paralysis of extraocular muscles of right eye.
Spinomotor:-
Left hemiparesis, left sensory impairment of limbs
and trunk.
Skull & spine:-
Gross deformity of left temporal and frontal areas
with scarring.
Therefore, we are inclined to accept the disability of 60%
MACA 980/2004 6
assessed by the Medical Board. The claimant was a girl aged
13 at the time of the accident. Her monthly income can
reasonably be fixed at Rs.3,000/-. As she was aged only 13,
multiplier of 15 would be reasonable. Thus calculated for the
disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of
Rs.3,24,000/- (Rs.3000/- x 12 x 15 x 60%). Thus the claimant is
entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.74,000/- on this
count.
10. We find that the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal towards the loss of amenities was
actually compensation for the disability caused. Therefore, for
the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, a compensation of
Rs.20,000/- would be reasonable.
11. No compensation was seen awarded for the
disfigurement caused. As the injuries sustained by her caused
serious disfigurement, we feel that a compensation of
Rs.25,000/- would be reasonable on this count.
12. As the claimant being a girl, we feel that a
compensation of Rs.25,000/- for loss of future marriage
MACA 980/2004 7
prospects would be reasonable. As regards the compensation
awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable
and therefore, we are not disturbing the same.
13. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an
additional compensation of Rs.1,44,000/-. The Tribunal
awarded interest only @ 6% per annum, which appears to be
very low. She is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of petition till realization for the compensation
already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation. The
respondents 3 and 6 shall deposit the amount 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.
MACA 980/2004 8 mn