IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1423 of 2005()
1. JOBBY GEORGE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR. CIVY V.PULAYATH,
... Respondent
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :30/07/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. 1423 of 2005
------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JULY 30, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
The appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) 1702/2000 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. He
sustained the following injuries when the car bearing registration
No.KL-7/AA 6767 in which he was travelling hit against an electric post
on the side of the road and capsized on Kurikunnam – Piravathanam
road on November 19, 2000 at about 8.30 p.m.:
“Lacerated wound on the left frontal region extending to the mid
line.
Multiple lacerations over the face.
Lacerated wound over the left wrist 8×2 cm.
Lacerated wound left hand extending from the wrist to the root
of the finger.
Claiming a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs the claimant filed the OP before
the Tribunal under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging
negligence against the 1st respondent, who was the owner-cum-
driver of the offending vehicle.
2. Respondent No.1 in his written statement admitted the
M.A.C.A. 1423 of 2005
2
accident, but denied the liability. The 2nd respondent, insurer of the
offending vehicle, filed a written statement admitting the policy.
3. This OP was jointly tried along with another OP filed by
another injured person in the accident and a common award was
passed. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A20 were
marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. Ext.B1 was
marked on the side of the respondents. On an appreciation of
evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the 1st respondent and awarded a total compensation
of Rs.64000/- with interest @ 6% 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.
4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the
counsel for the Insurance Company.
5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal
that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st
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.
6. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as
under:
M.A.C.A. 1423 of 2005
3
loss of earning Rs.6000/-
transportation 2500/-
damage to clothing 500/-
extra nourishment 1000/-
treatment expenses 39000/-
attendant's expenses 1000/-
pain and suffering 8000/-
loss of amenities 6000/-
7. Counsel for the claimant sought compensation for the
disability caused and enhancement of the compensation for the pain
and suffering endured by the claimant. No compensation was
awarded by the Tribunal for the disability caused to the claimant. The
claimant suffered a permanent disability of 10% as seen from Ext.A12
certificate issued from the hospital. Ext.A12 shows that “FDS tendon
to little finger was severed and there was partial injury to FDS of
middle finger and partial injury to median nerve and that the injured
tendons were repaired”. Therefore we feel that the percentage of
disability suffered by the claimant can be taken as 5%. The Tribunal
took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1500/-. According to
the claimant he was a dental mechanic in A.J.Dental Lab,
Koothattukulam, earning Rs.4000/- per month. Ext.A16 is the copy of
registration as dental mechanic issued by Tamil Nadu Dental Council.
M.A.C.A. 1423 of 2005
4
Ext.A17 shows that the claimant has undergone two year dental
mechanic course at Sankarachariyar Dental College, Salem. Ext.A18 is
the salary certificate. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we
feel that his monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.3000/-. A
multiplier of 17 would be reasonable in this case as he was aged 24 at
the time of the accident. Thus calculated, for the disability caused the
claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.30600/- (5% of 1500 x 12
x 17).
8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.8000/- as the compensation for
the pain and suffering endured by the claimant which appears to be
very low. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries
sustained, 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 the same to be reasonable and therefore
we are not disturbing the same.
9. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of
Rs.32,600/-. The Tribunal awarded interest only at the rate of 6%
per annum, which appears to be very low. He is entitled to interest @
7.5% per annum for the compensation already awarded and for the
enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realisation and
proportionate cost. The 2nd respondent being the insurer of the
M.A.C.A. 1423 of 2005
5
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
mt/-
