IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 358 of 2004()
1. BHASKARAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.K.SOMAN, MANKUNNEL VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. JOSE, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. LONAPPAN,
3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
4. C.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, KALIYATH BUILDINGS,
5. T.RAFI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. PAUL,
6. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :29/03/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
M.A.C.A. No. 358 of 2004
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 29th 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.1508 of 1995 of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad challenges the
judgment and award of the Tribunal dated December 12,
2003, awarding a compensation of Rs.22,370/- 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 33 at the time of the accident.
On April 2, 1995 the claimant was travelling in a tempo van
bearing registration No. KL7A 5166 from Chalakudy to
Thodipal in connection with transportation of tarpaulin.
When the tempo van reached at Thodipal, it collided head
on with another vehicle bearing registration No. KBR 585,
MACA 358/2004 2
as a result of which the claimant sustained very serious
injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending tempo van by the second
respondent. The first respondent as the owner, second
respondent as the driver and third respondent as the
insurer of the offending tempo van are jointly and severely
liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The claimant
claimed compensation of Rs.1,12,000/-.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 are the owner, driver and
insurer of the tempo van in which the claimant was
traveling. Respondents 4 to 6 are the owner, driver and
insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident, bearing
registration No.KBR 585. Only respondents 3 and 6, which
are the same Insurance Company, contested the case. They
admitted the policy, but contended that the petitioner is a
gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and therefore, the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to
the claimant.
4. The claimant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to
MACA 358/2004 3
A7 were marked on the side of the claimant. Copies of the
policies of the respective vehicles were marked as Exts.B1
and B2 on the side of respondents 3 and 6 before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence,
awarded a compensation of Rs.22,370/- with interest at the
rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and
costs. The claimant has come up in appeal, challenging the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned 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 second respondent is not challenged in
this appeal. Therefore, the only question for consideration is
whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced
compensation?
7. The claimant sustained the following injuries as
revealed form Ext.A5 copy of wound certificate issued from
the hospital:-
MACA 358/2004 4
1) Contusion and lacerated wound on right elbow 8 x 6
x 5 c.m. with contusion and deformity.
2) 2) Comminuted fracture on the right base of elbow.
He was treated in the hospital for 17 days. Ext.A6 is the
disability certificate. Taking into consideration the above
aspects, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.22,370/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as
under:-
Loss of earning : Rs.3,000/-
Transport to hospital : Rs.750/-
Extra nourishment : Rs.500/-
Pain and suffering : Rs.7,000/-
Expenses of bystander : Rs.500/-
Medical expenses : Rs.4,500/-
Permanent disability : Rs.6,120/-
and loss of earning power.
-----------------
Total : Rs.22,370/-
========
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly
sought enhancement of compensation awarded under
disability caused and for the pain and suffering endured. We
find no force in the above contention. The Tribunal is
MACA 358/2004 5
justified in rejecting Ext.A6, the certificate of disability ,as it
does not contain no details regarding the present disability
of the claimant. Taking into consideration the nature of the
injuries sustained and the period of treatment the claimant
has undergone and as no document is produced to prove the
income of the claimant, we find that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and that the
claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation.
9. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the
appeal and therefore the same has to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. In the
circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
A.K.BASHEER,
JUDGE.
P.Q. BARKATH ALI,
JUDGE.
mn