IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 60 of 2009()
1. K.P.SUBAIR,S/O.MARAKKARKUTTY, AGED 48
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.AZEEZ,S/O.POCKER, AGED NOT KNOWN
... Respondent
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,
For Petitioner :SMT.K.V.RESHMI
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :05/07/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 60 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)1017/03.
The claimant, a 43 year old man, sustained injuries in a road
accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of
Rs.2,000/- and it is against that decision the claimant has
come up in appeal for enhancement.
2. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the
insurance company. The Tribunal without any reason has
fixed the contributory negligence at 50% and had discarded
each and every document produced by the claimant. The
police has filed a charge sheet against the first respondent
for rash and negligence driving. The Tribunal would state
that when an FIR is filed against a person charge will be filed
against him only. I think it is incorrect. Investigation is the
instrumentality of the State and unless there are sufficient
reasons it shall not be simply brushed aside.
M.A.C.A. 60 OF 2009
-:2:-
3. Similarly PW1 has been examined in this case and
he had deposed about the negligence of the driver. So really
materials are only one sided to prove the negligence and
therefore I hold that the accident took place on account of
the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent.
4. Next is regarding the compensation. It is true
that in the wound certificate only a superficial abrasion over
the dorsal of nose with no fracture is noted. Disability
certificate issued by the very same Medical College Hospital
would reveal that he had nasal bleeding and he had abraded
wound over left hand and right leg. It was also seen that
there was blood stain on the left of the nasal cavity but no
fracture of the nose was detected. But the X-ray would
reveal a fracture of the patella of the right leg. He had
continued treatment thereafter as well and the last document
is relating to 26.8.04 which does not have any connection
with the injury for the reason it deals with some lumbo-
sacral sprain. So it is also noted by the Tribunal that a
disability certificate of 1% has been produced. Therefore
M.A.C.A. 60 OF 2009
-:3:-
taking into consideration all these aspects I am recalculating
the compensation as follows.
5. Being an auto driver by profession who had
sustained a fracture of the patella cum nasal injury I award
Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings, towards hospital
expenses and extra nourishment I award a sum of
Rs.1,500/-, towards transport I award a sum of Rs.500/-,
towards pain and sufferings a sum of Rs.6,000/- is awarded.
For 1% permanent disability for an income of Rs.2,000/- per
month applying a multiplier of 14 as prescribed in Sarala
Varma’s case [2009 ACJ 1298(Sarala Varma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation)] would come to Rs.3,360/- and
Rs.2,000/- more is awarded towards loss of amenities and
enjoyment in life, thus making a total compensation of
Rs.16,360/- out of which Rs.2,000/- is already awarded.
In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the
claimant is awarded an additional compensation of
Rs.14,360/- with 7.5% interest on the said sum from the
date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is
M.A.C.A. 60 OF 2009
-:4:-
directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-