IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2055 of 2007()
1. K.K.ALIKUNJU, AGED 58 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.S.SAINABHA, W/O T.B.KUNJUMUHAMMED,
... Respondent
2. JOSHY, S/O NARAYANAN,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.P.JAYASANKAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :23/11/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A. No. 2055 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 23rd day of NOVEMBER, 2009
J U D G M E N T
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
1. Challenge in this appeal is in respect of the
inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)
No.1697/1999.
2. Appellant/claimant, while travelling as a passenger
in the bus bearing No.KL-7H 9099, sustained serious
injuries when the bus went out of control, crossing the
median and hit against a building, which led to the claim
petition preferred before the Tribunal.
3. First respondent/owner of the bus and the second
respondent/driver did not choose to contest the matter,
despite the service of notice. In the said circumstance, the
third respondent/insurer was permitted to have wider
defence on allowing the petition filed under Section 170 of
M.A.C.A. No. 2055 of 2007
2
the Motor Vehicles Act. The evidence consists of Ext.A1 to
A9 marked on the side of the claimant and Ext.B1 copy of the
Policy produced on the part of the third respondent, while no
oral evidence was adduced by either side. After appreciation
of the facts and figures, the Tribunal held that the accident
was because of the rash and negligent driving by the second
respondent and hence that the claimant was liable to be
compensated in respect of the injuries sustained.
4. After going through the available evidence on
record, the Tribunal awarded various amounts under the
permissible heads; such as Rs.16,500/- towards the
permanent disability, Rs.20,000/- towards the pain and
suffering, Rs.1,000/- towards the transportation to hospital,
Rs.2,500/- towards the extra nourishment and bystander’s
expenses, Rs.3,750/- towards the loss of earning for three
months, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and a further
sum of Rs.42,889/- towards medical expenses, thus granting
a total sum of Rs.96,631/- (in place of the actual figure of
M.A.C.A. No. 2055 of 2007
3
Rs.96,639/-) which was directed to be satisfied by the insurer
with interest @7% per annum from the date of the petition
till the date of payment.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the amounts awarded by the Tribunal are very much on the
lower side and it requires to be enhanced to a substantial
extent, in view of the nature of injuries sustained and the
consequences resulted. Learned counsel however concedes
that no oral evidence was adduced from the part of the
claimant to substantiate the position in a better manner.
However, taking note of the injuries sustained, the amount of
medical expenses incurred, different spells of hospitalisation
and such other relevant aspects as brought to light, we find
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under some
heads requires some modification.
6. It is seen that the permanent disability of
appellant/claimant has been certified as 10% as shown in
Ext.A8 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. It
M.A.C.A. No. 2055 of 2007
4
is seen that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,500/-
under this head, presumably taking the notional income of
the claimant at Rs.1,250/- per month as a Coolie/worker. We
find it fit and proper to have the same reworked, reckoning
the monthly income at least as Rs.1,750/- and on
recalculation of the figures reckoning the certified
permanent disability of 10%, and adopting the multiplier of
’11’ (based on the age of the claimant as 50 years), the
appellant is found entitled to get a further sum of Rs.6,600/-
as the balance compensation payable under this head. We
find that the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,000/-
towards the transportation expenses. Considering the facts
and figures as to the period of hospitalisation and the
treatment undergone in different hospitals, we find that a
further sum of Rs.2,000/- can be awarded under this head as
well. Considering the extent of injuries and also the
consequences resulted, a further sum of Rs.1,000/- is
awarded towards the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.
M.A.C.A. No. 2055 of 2007
5
In view of the fact that we have reworked the compensation
for the permanent disability refixing the monthly income as
Rs.1,750/-, the appellant/claimant is eligible to get a further
sum of Rs.1,500/- towards loss of earning for three months.
7. In the result, the appellant is hereby awarded a
further sum of Rs.11,100/- as the balance compensation
payable in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the
accident occurred on 1/6/1999. The said amount shall be
deposited by the third respondent/insurer, with interest
@7% per annum from the date of the petition, till the date of
payment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Appeal is allowed in part. No cost.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
nl