IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MACA.No. 213 of 2004() 1. MANSOOR. C., S/O. E.K. HAMSA HAJI, ... Petitioner Vs 1. C. ASLAM, S/O. ABDULRAHIMAN KUTTY, ... Respondent 2. GAFOOR. K.U., S/O. UMMER, 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE 4. K. ABDULKHADER, S/O. ANDARU, 5. MR. P. RAGHAVAN, S/O. KANDANKUNHI, 6. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI Dated :15/06/2010 O R D E R A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.213 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the
claimant in O.P.(MV)No.777/1998 of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Kasargod challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal
dated July 31, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,56,900/- for the
loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a
2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these :
The claimant was aged 28 the time of the accident and used to
earn Rs. 25,000/- per month as a Sales Manager in a private firm. On
July 25, 1998 at about 5.p.m., the claimant was travelling as a
passenger in a Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KL 12/8708 from
Vadakara to Mangalore which was driven by the first respondent.
When they reached at Mailatty near Poinachi in National Highway 17,
it collided head on with a lorry bearing Reg.No.14/6469 . The claimant
sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruthi car by
first respondent. First respondent as the driver, second respondent as
the owner and third respondent as the insurer of the offending Maruthi
car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
Claimant claimed a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the offending
car filed a joint written statement admitting the accident, but contended
that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the
driver of the lorry. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending
Maruthi Car filed a written statement admitting the policy.
4. In the light of the contentions raised by respondents 1 to 3,
the driver, owner and the insurer of the lorry involved in the accident
were impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 6 in the O.P.
Respondents 4 and 5, the driver and the owner of the lorry remained
absent before the Tribunal. The 6th respondent, the insurer of the lorry
filed a written statement admitting the policy, but contended that the
accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the
5. This O.P. was jointly tried along with O.P.(MV)
No.721/1998, filed by another injured passenger and a common award
was passed. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A14 series and
Ext.X1 disability certificate of the claimant were marked on the side of
the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by
contesting respondents. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence
found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the offending Maruthi Car by first respondent and awarded a
compensation of Rs. 1,56,900/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The claimant has
come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal.
6. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the
counsel for the third respondent/Insurance Company.
7. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal
that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first
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.
8. The claimant sustained the following injuries as revealed
from Ext.A3, the copy of the wound certificate and Ext.A4, discharge
summary issued from the hospital.
1. Lacerated wound over the left eyebrow 2 x 1 cm.
2. Laceration over the lower lip on the right side
1.5 cm. x = cm.
3. Lacerated wound of 3x 3 cms. on the right forearm middle
4. Degloving injury to left forearm on the dorsal aspect.
5. Deformity over the right thigh with contusion.
6. Swelling over the left knee with tenderness
7. Swelling and tenderness over the left ankle.
8. Lacerated wound of 5 x 2 cm. over the left leg.
9. X – ray revealed fracture of radius of left forearm
9. He was admitted in the hospital on July 25, 1998 and was
discharged on August 16, 1998. Ext.A8, the certificate of disability
issued by the Doctor shows that claimant has now a permanent
disability of 30%. Ext.X1, the certificate issued by the District Medical
Board shows that he has a permanent disability of 25%.
10. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.1,56,900/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under :
Loss of earning - Rs. 7,200/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 2,500/- Treatment expenses - Rs.35,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs.15,000/- Disability - Rs.97,200/- MACA.No.213/04 5
11. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the
compensation for the disability caused, loss of amenities and enjoyment
of life and for the disfigurement caused.
12. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as
Rs. 1800/- and adopted a multiplier of 18 and accepted the percentage
of disability as 25% as mentioned in Ext.X1 and awarded Rs. 97,200/-
for the disability caused. The claimant was aged 28 at the time of the
accident and was working as a Sales Manager in a private firm earning
Rs. 25,000/- per month as seen from Ext.A9 and Ext.A10. Taking into
consideration the above aspect, we feel that his monthly income can be
reasonably fixed at Rs. 2,250/-. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal
as 18 and the percentage of disability as 25% as assessed by the
Medical Board in Ext.X1 are not seriously challenged. Thus calculated
for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of
Rs.1,21,500/- ( 25% x 2250 x 12 x 18). Thus on this count, the
claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 24,300/-.
13. No compensation was awarded for the loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life. The Tribunal has noticed that his left lower arm is
disfigured and there were scar marks of the operation on the same. His
left foot was also swelling. Taking into consideration all these aspects,
we feel that for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, a
compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would be reasonable. As regards the
compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be
reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same.
14. In the result, the claimant is entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs. 34,300/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost.
The third 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.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE