IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1654 of 2010()
1. P.V.AJAYAN, AGED 26 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A.No.1654 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1547/2003 on the file
of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. He sustained
fracture of shaft right femur in a motor accident that occurred on
August 15, 2003. The accident happened while the claimant was pillion
riding on a motor bike and reached in front of Payyannur College, he
was knocked down by a tempo van bearing Reg.No.KL-14/A 3263
driven by the second respondent. Alleging negligence against the
second respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of
Rs. 1,50,000/-.
2. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the
offending tempo van though entered appearance did not file any written
statement. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending tempo van
filed a written statement admitting the policy.
3. Exts.A1 to A9 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the
MACA.No.1654/2010 2
claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the
contesting third respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of
evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the offending tempo van by second respondent and awarded
a compensation of Rs. 89,450/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. 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. On going
through the judgment of the Tribunal, we felt that even without issuing
notice to the respondents, this appeal can be disposed of. Hence no
notice was issued to the respondents.
5. The only question which arises for consideration is whether
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
6. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under :
Loss of earning - Rs. 5,000/-
Medical expenses - Rs.35,500/-
Bystander expenses - Rs. 2,700/-
Transportation exp. - Rs. 1,000/-
Extra nourishment - Rs. 2,000/-
Pain and suffering - Rs.19,000/-
Disability income - Rs.19,200/-
Review treatment - Rs. 2,000/-
Any other heads(loss
MACA.No.1654/2010 3
on account of loss of one
academic year) - Rs. 3,000/-
7. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of
compensation for the disability caused.
8. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as
Rs. 2500/- , took his disability as 4% , adopted a multiplier of 16 and
awarded Rs. 19,200/- for the disability caused. Claimant was aged 19
at the time of the accident. In Ext.X1, the Medical Board has certified
his disability as 8%. But the Tribunal took the percentage of disability
as 4% which appears to be reasonable.
9. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained
and the period of treatment the claimant has undergone and the nature
of the disabilities sustained by him, we feel that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. It follows that the
claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. That being so,
the appeal has to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
sv.
MACA.No.1654/2010 4
MACA.No.1654/2010 5