IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1698 of 2005()
1. K.MUSTHAFA, S/O.VEERAN HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.K.GOPALAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. V.K.MUHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.MOHAMMED,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
For Petitioner :SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN
For Respondent :SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
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. 1698 of 2005
------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JULY 30, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
The appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) 1986/1995 on the
file of the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode.
The claimant sustained a crush injury on left hand as a result of which
his phalanx of index finger, ring finger and middle finger had to be
amputated. The accident happened on May 24, 1995 while the jeep
bearing registration No.KRZ 2498 in which he was travelling hit on the
electric post on the side of the road. Alleging negligence against the
2nd respondent, he filed the OP claiming a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs.
2. Respondent No.1, owner of the offending jeep, filed a
written statement stating that he had sold the vehicle on August 19,
1994 to one Chandran and therefore he is not liable. The 2nd
respondent, driver of the jeep, denied the liability. The 3rd
respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, admitted the policy.
3. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimant
before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced on the side of the
respondents. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found
M.A.C.A.1698 of 2005
2
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent
and awarded a total compensation of Rs.65,700/- with interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of
Rs1000/-. 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 2nd
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:
disability Rs.35,700/- pain and suffering 17,000/- loss of amenities 9,000/- on other eligible counts 4,000/-
7. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the
compensation for the disability caused, for loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life and for pain and suffering endured by the claimant.
The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1500/-,
M.A.C.A.1698 of 2005
3
adopted a multiplier of 17, took the percentage of disability as 21%
and awarded Rs.35,700/- as the compensation for the disability
caused. As the claimant was aged only 23, we feel that his monthly
income can be reasonably fixed at Rs.2000/-. The multiplier adopted
by the Tribunal as 17 and the percentage of disability as 21% are not
seriously challenged. Thus calculated, for the disability caused the
claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.85,680/-. Therefore on
this count the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of
Rs.49,980/-.
8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9000/- as the compensation for
the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. The tip of three fingers of
the claimant were amputated. Therefore we feel that for loss of
amenities and enjoyment of life, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- would
be reasonable.
9. A sum of Rs.17,000/- was awarded for the pain and
suffering endured by the claimant. Taking into consideration the
nature of the injuries sustained, we feel that a compensation of
Rs.20,000/- 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.
10. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation
M.A.C.A.1698 of 2005
4
of Rs.58,980/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 3rd
respondent being the insurer of the 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/-