High Court Kerala High Court

Roble R.John vs Tom Thomas on 17 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Roble R.John vs Tom Thomas on 17 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1886 of 2005()


1. ROBLE R.JOHN, S/O.ABRAHAM JOHN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. TOM THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, KONDODICKAL
                       ...       Respondent

2. GOPI, S/O.RAMAN, KUTTIKATTU HOUSE,

3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.JAYASANKAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :17/02/2010

 O R D E R
             A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        M.A.C.A.No.1886 OF 2005
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010

                                JUDGMENT

Barkath Ali, J.

In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the

claimant in O.P.(MV)NO.132/2002 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Kottayam challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated

August 26, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs. 20,203/- for the loss

caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident.

2. The facts in brief are these :

The claimant was working as an air-conditioner mechanic and

was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 5000/-. On June 24, 2001 at about

7.00 p.m. while the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing Reg.No.

KL 5H/5165 along KK road driven by the second respondent and was

about to get down from the bus at Vadavathoor, the second respondent

took the bus forward negligently, as a result of which the claimant fell

down and sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, the

accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the second

MACA.No.1886/05 Page numbers

respondent, the driver. First respondent as the owner and second

respondent as the driver and third respondent as the insurer of the

offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation

to the claimants.

3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending

vehicle remained absent and were set ex parte before the Tribunal.

Third respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, filed written

statement admitting the policy. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side

of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the

contesting third respondent .

4. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded a

compensation of Rs. 20,203/- with interest and cost of Rs. 1300/-. The

claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal

that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the

second respondent is not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore

the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant

is entitled to any enhanced compensation. The claimants sustained the

MACA.No.1886/05 Page numbers

following injuries :

Avulsion of 4 teeth on the upper jaw and mobility Gr.I of 2 teeth

in the lower jaw and lacerated wound over left lip ,lateral side of face,

right eye and chin.

6. Ext.A3 is the wound certificate . He was hospitalised from

24-06-2001 to 2-07-2001 i.e. for 7 days. The Tribunal awarded the

compensation as follows :

      Medical Bills          -Rs. 3,953/-
      Extra nourishment      -Rs. 1,000/-
      Damage to clothing &
      Transport to hospital  -Rs.      750/-
      Loss of earning        -Rs. 3,000/-
      Pain and suffering     -Rs. 4,500/-
      Loss of teeth          -Rs. 5,000/-
      Loss of amenities      -Rs. 2,000/-
                             ----------------
                             Rs. 20,203/-
                              =========

7. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4500/- for pain and suffering.

Taking into consideration the nature of the injury sustained and the

period of treatment undergone by the claimant, we feel that a

compensation of Rs. 15,500/- would be reasonable on this count. Thus

on this count, he is entitled to an additional compensation of

Rs. 11,000/-.

MACA.No.1886/05 Page numbers

8. For the loss of teeth Rs. 5000/- was awarded by the

Tribunal. The claimant has lost 4 teeth . Therefore, we feel that a

compensation of Rs. 15000/- would be adequate on this count.

Therefore, on this head, he is entitled to an additional compensation of

Rs. 10,000/-. In all other respects, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal appears to be reasonable.

9. In the result, the claimant is entitled to an additional

compensation of Rs. 21,000/-. He is entitled to interest @ 9% per

annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost.

Third respondent, the insurer, shall deposit the amount before the

Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment with notice to the claimant. 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
sv.

MACA.No.1886/05    Page numbers