IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 320 of 2007()
1. A. RAJAMMA, 43 YEARS (DIED).
... Petitioner
2. PRAVEEN KUMAR, 31 YEARS,
3. PRAJIL KUMAR, S/O.LATE RAJAMMA,
Vs
1. CHANDROTH ABDULLA, 55 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. C.K. THITHRAN, S/O.T.V.KUMARAN,
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
4. CHACKO K.M., 50 YEARS,
5. T.J. JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,
6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
7. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :04/03/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
-------------------------
M.A.C.A No.320 of 2007
--------------------------
Dated this the 4th March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Barkath Ali,J.
In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act the claimants in O.P. (MV) No.161/2001 of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery the judgment and
award of the Tribunal dated September 1, 2006 awarding
a compensation of Rs.10,300/- for the loss caused to the
deceased 1st claimant on account of the injuries sustained
by her in a motor accident is challenged by the legal heirs
of the deceased first claimant.
2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are
these: On March 21, 2000 at about 4 p.m. the deceased
1st claimant was travelling in a Jeep bearing Reg. No.KL-
14/A 4136 from Parassinikkadavu to Kannur. When the
jeep reached near Kottakkunnu, a lorry bearing Reg.
No.KLZ 9725 came from the back side and hit against the
rear side of the jeep. Deceased 1st claimant sustained
serious injuries. According to the claimants, the accident
occurred to rash and negligent driving of the offending
lorry by the 1st respondent. First respondent as the
M.A.C.A No.320 of 2007
2
driver, 2nd respondent as the owner and 3rd respondent,
insurer of the offending lorry are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to the deceased 1st claimant.
3. Respondents 4 to 6 are the driver, owner and
insurer of the jeep. The deceased 1st claimant claimed a
compensation of Rs.1,05,000/-. During the pendency of the
petition before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant died. Her
husband and two sons are impleaded as supplemental
petitioners 2 to 4.
4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A3 were
marked on the side of the claimants.. Exts.B1 and B2 were
marked on the side of the respondents. On an appreciation
of evidence the Tribunal awarded a compensation of
Rs.10,300/-. Claimants 2 to 4 have come up in appeal
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal. The deceased 1st claimant sustained the
following injuries.
i. Lacerated wound chin 3 cms bone deep.
ii. Abrasion on both knees.
iii. Tooth from the lower row mobile and extracted.
5. Ext. A2 is the copy of the wound certificate. She
was admitted on 21.3.2000 and and was discharged on
M.A.C.A No.320 of 2007
3
29.3.2000. The deceased 1st claimant died on December
25, 2005 i.e five years after the accident. The appellant
would content that due to the injury sustained in the
accident, she was admitted in the Medical College Hospital,
Pariyaram and was undergoing treatment till her death.
But no document was produced by the claimants to prove
the same.
6. The deceased 1st claimant was aged 43 at the
time of the accident. The Tribunal took her monthly
income as Rs.1,500/- as there was no document to prove her
occupation. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of
Rs.10,300/-. The break up of the award amount is as under:
Loss of earning - Rs.1,500 Transportation expense - 250 Medical expenses - 2,150 Bystanders expense - 900 Extra nourishment - 500 Pain and sufferings - 2,000 Loss of one tooth - 3,000 --------------------------- 10,300 ============
7. The counsel for the appellants/claimants argued
that the claimants produced bills amounting to Rs.14,911/-
and that the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2150/- towards
M.A.C.A No.320 of 2007
4
medical expenses, which is very low. He has also claimed
enhancement of compensation towards pain and sufferings,
loss of earnings etc. The Tribunal found that the bills
relating the period from 21.3.2000 to 29.3.2000 covers only
Rs.2,194/- and awarded compensation of Rs.2150/-. The
Tribunal rejected all the other medical bills relating to
subsequent period. We find no special reason to come to a
different conclusion. That apart taking into consideration
the nature of the injuries sustained and the period of
treatment the deceased 1st claimant has undergone, we
feel that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal and
the same has to be dismissed. In the circumstances, parties
will have to bear their own costs.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
ma
M.A.C.A No.320 of 2007
5
M.A.C.A No.320 of 2007
6