IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1678 of 2005()
1. SALIM, S/O. ABDUL KHADER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHANDRAN, S/O. KANDAN,
... Respondent
2. C. PERUMAL, S/O. CHINNANNA GOUNTER
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN
For Respondent :SRI.P.JAYASANKAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :16/03/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
M.A.C.A. No. 1678 of 2005
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J:
In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act claimant in O.P.(MV) No.829 of 1998 of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad challenges the
judgment and award of the Tribunal dated March 25, 2004
awarding a compensation of Rs.39,500/- for the loss caused
to the claimant, on account of the injury sustained by him in
a motor accident.
2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these:-
The claimant was aged 18 at the time of the accident.
He was employed as a Cleaner and was earning Rs.2,000/-
per month, according to him. On June 24, 1997 at about
1.30 p.m. the petitioner was travelling from Coimbatore to
Ernakulam in a tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-37
F 6499 as a Cleaner and when the lorry reached at
Elamthuruthi, it capsized on the side of the road. As a
MACA 1678/2005 2
result, the claimant sustained very serious injuries.
According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to a
rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first
respondent. The first respondent as the driver, second
respondent as the owner and third respondent as the
insurer of the lorry are jointly and severely liable to pay the
compensation to the claimant. The claimant claimed a
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner of the lorry
respectively, remained absent and were set ex parte by the
Tribunal. The third respondent Insurance Company field a
written statement, admitting the policy.
4. The claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to
A10 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence
was adduced by the contesting third respondent. The
Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence, awarded a
compensation of Rs.39,500/- with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till realization and cost. The
claimant has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of
MACA 1678/2005 3
compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the third respondent, 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 first 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 claimant sustained the following injuries, as
revealed from Ext.A5 wound certificate :-
“1) Lacerated wound 5 x 0.5 cm. on the right
knee with nerve injury.
2) Lacerated wound 3 x 0.5 cm. on right leg.
3) Lacerated wound 5 x 0.5 cm. on occipital
area.
4) Lacerated wound 1 x 0.5 cm. on dorsum of
right hand”
MACA 1678/2005 4
Ext.A7 is the disability certificate issued from the Aswini
Hospital, Thrissur, which shows that he has now the
following disabilities:-
“1) Present condition foot drop right.
2) Nerve has not been recovered.
3) Difficulty to walk due to foot drop.
The doctor assessed the disability at 20%. The Tribunal
assessed his monthly income as Rs.1,500/-, took disability at
6% and adopted a multiplier of 16. The Tribunal awarded a
total compensation of Rs.39,500/-. The break up of the
compensation awarded is as under:-
Loss of earnings : Rs.6,000/-
Transport to hospital : Rs.1,500/-
Extra-nourishment : Rs.1,500/-
Medical expenses : Rs.5,000/-
Pain and suffering : Rs.8,000/-
Compensation for permanent : Rs.17,500/-
disability.
-----------------
Total : Rs.39,500/-
=======
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has sought
enhancement of compensation for disability caused, for loss
of amenities and enjoyment in life and for pain and suffering
MACA 1678/2005 5
endured. For awarding a compensation for disability
caused, the Tribunal took monthly income of Rs.1,500/-,
adopted multiplier of 16 and took disability caused as 6%.
On going through Ext.A8 the certificate of disability, we feel
that disability can be fixed at 10%. Monthly income as well
as the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is not seriously
challenged. Thus, for the disability caused, the claimant is
entitled to a compensation of Rs.28,800/-. Thus, on this
count, the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of
Rs.11,300/-.
9. For pain and suffering the Tribunal awarded a
compensation of Rs.8,000/-, which, in our view, is very low.
Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained,
we feel that compensation of Rs.15,000/- would be
reasonable on this count. Thus, on this count the claimant is
entitled to additional compensation of Rs.7,000/-.
10. For the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life the
Tribunal did not award any amount. Taking into
consideration the nature of the injuries sustained and the
MACA 1678/2005 6
period of treatment the claimant has undergone, we feel
that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable on
this count. As regards the compensation awarded under
other heads, we find reasonable and adequate
compensation was awarded and therefore, we are not
disturbing the same.
11. Thus, the claimant is entitled to additional
compensation of Rs.28,300/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of petition till realization with
proportionate costs. The third respondent Insurance
Company shall deposit the amount within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment before the
Tribunal with notice to the claimant.
The appeal is disposed of as found above.
A.K.BASHEER,
JUDGE.
P.Q. BARKATH ALI,
JUDGE.
mn