IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2339 of 2007()
1. K.V. RAJAN, S/O. VELU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUNILKUMAR, S/O. DASAN,
... Respondent
2. SHEELA CHANDRAN,
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR
For Respondent :SMT.P.A.REZIYA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :03/06/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. 2339 of 2007
------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JUNE 3, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
In this appeal under sec.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the
claimant in OP(MV) 1375/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, challenges the judgment and award
of the Tribunal dated February 15, 2007 awarding a compensation of
Rs.34,580/- for the loss caused to the claimant on account of the
injuries sustained in a motor accident.
2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these: The
claimant was aged 51 at the time of the accident and was employed
in FACT, Cochin Division, earning a salary of Rs.9573/-. On June 26,
2000 at about 8.30 a.m. the claimant was riding his motorcycle
bearing registration No.KL-7/9432 along the Ambalamughal –
Karimughal road. When he reached near Karimughal police station,
another motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-5/E-8949 ridden by
the 1st respondent came at a high speed from the opposite side and
dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. The claimant
sustained very serious injuries. According to the claimant the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the other
M.A.C.A. 2339 of 2007
2
motorcycle by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent as the rider,
the 2nd respondent as the owner and the 3rd respondent as the
insurer of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-5/E-
8949 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
claimant.
3. Respondents Nos.1 and 2, the rider and the owner of the
offending motorcycle, remained absent and were set ex parte by the
Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the offending motorcycle,
filed a written statement admitting the policy and further contending
that there was negligence on the part of the claimant also.
4. PW.1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on
the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was
adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent. On an appreciation of
evidence the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.34,580/- with
interest at 7% 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.
5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the
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 1st
M.A.C.A. 2339 of 2007
3
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.
7. The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed
from Ext.A6, copy of the wound certificate, issued from Samaritan
Hospital, Pazhanganad:
1. lacerated wound 5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cm. left knee.
2. patellar tendon cut left.
3. fracture of nasal bone.
4. brain concussion.
He was in the hospital for 13 days.
8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.34,580/-.
The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:-
loss of income - Rs.14,330/-
attendant's charges - 1,500/-
transportation expenses - 500/-
damage to clothings - 250/-
extra nourishment - 1,000/-
pain and suffering - 10,000/-
loss of amenities - 7,000/-
9. The Counsel for the appellant/claimant sought enhancement
of the compensation for the loss of amenities, pain and suffering,
M.A.C.A. 2339 of 2007
4
extra nourishment etc.. Taking into consideration the nature of the
injuries sustained and the period of treatment the claimant has
undergone and as he has failed to prove that due to the injuries
sustained, he was compelled to take voluntary retirement from the
job, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and reasonable. It follows that he is not entitled to any enhanced
compensation. That being so, the appeal has to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mt/-