IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1381 of 2004()
1. V.L.KISHORE,AGED 23 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAJENDRAN.K. THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. SHAJI.P. LAILA MANZIL,
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
4. J.C.K.NAIR, AIR FORCE STATION, NAL,
5. VISHNU, PADMA SADHANAM, KAKKAKONAM,
6. M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent :SRI.A.R.GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A.No.1381 OF 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1143/1998 on the file
of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Neyyattinkara. He sustained the
following injuries in a motor accident that occurred on August 5, 1998
at about 11.20 A.M.
Tenderness on the lumbo sacral region, upper ( L)
central and lateral incisors broken, fracture L4 vertebra,
abrasion over forehead.
2. The accident happened while the claimant was pillion
riding on a scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-01-M-1965 ridden by the fifth
respondent along Kattakada-Malayinikil public road and reached near
Kottapuram bus stand, the fifth respondent tried to overtake a
K.S.R.T.C. bus going in front and he lost his control and the scooter
dashed against a car bearing Reg.No.KL-01-G-4334 driven by the
second respondent. First respondent is the owner, second respondent is
the driver and third respondent is the insurer of the car. Fourth
MACA.No.1381/2004 2
respondent is the owner, fifth respondent is the rider and sixth
respondent is the insurer of the scooter. Alleging negligence against
the second respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of
Rs. 2,00,000/-.
3. Respondents 1, 2, 4, and 5 remained absent before the
Tribunal. Respondents 3 and 6, the Insurance Companies, filed written
statements admitting the policy of the vehicles , but attributed
negligence to the driver of the other vehicle.
4. Pw 1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the
side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by
the contesting respondents. The Tribunal on an appreciation of
evidence found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
drivers of both vehicles and awarded a compensation of Rs. 32,650/-
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation .
The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
MACA.No.1381/2004 3
5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the
counsel for the Insurance Company.
6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal
that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the
drivers of both the vehicles 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 :
Transportation - Rs. 1,000/-
Treatment exp. - Rs 1,000/-
Damage to clothing - Rs. 250/-
Disability - Rs.14,400/-
Loss of amenities - Rs. 6,000/-
Pain and suffering - Rs.10,000/-
8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of
compensation for the disability caused and for loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life.
9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as
Rs.1,250/-, took the percentage of disability as 6%, adopted a
multiplier of 16 and awarded Rs. 14,400/- for the disability caused. the
claimant was aged only 17 at the time of the accident. Therefore we
MACA.No.1381/2004 4
feel that the notional monthly income of the claimant can be reasonably
fixed at Rs. 1500/-. The Tribunal took the percentage of disability as
6% which appears to be on the lower side. In Ext.A7 disability
certificate issued from the Medical College Hospital,
Thiruvananthapuram, the doctor assessed his disability as 15%. Taking
into consideration the above aspect, we feel that the percentage of
disability can be reasonably fixed at 10%. The multiplier adopted by
the Tribunal as 16 is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for
the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of
Rs. 28,800/- ( 10% x 1500 x 12 x 16). Thus on this count, the claimant
is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.14,400/-.
10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- for loss of amenities and
enjoyment in life which is very low. Taking into consideration the
nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, we feel that a
compensated of Rs. 10,000/- would be reasonable on this count. As
regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same
to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same.
11. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional
MACA.No.1381/2004 5
compensation of Rs. 18,400/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost.
The third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall
deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 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
sv.
MACA.No.1381/2004 6
MACA.No.1381/2004 7
MACA.No.1381/2004 8