IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 327 of 2007()
1. SASIDHARAN, S/O.KANNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUGUNA JAYARAJAN,
... Respondent
2. K.R.PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.RAMAN,
3. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :10/02/2010
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. 327 & 338 of 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: FEBRUARY 10, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
In M.A.C.A. 327 of 2007 the claimant in OP(MV) 1334/2000 of
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, challenges the judgment
and award of the Tribunal dated November 30, 2005 granting a
compensation of Rs.32,593/- for the loss caused to him on account of
the injuries sustained in a motor accident. In M.A.C.A. 338 of 2007
the claimant in OP(MV) 1335/2000 of the same Tribunal challenges
the same judgment and award of the Tribunal granting a
compensation of Rs.71,054/- for the loss caused to him on account of
the injuries sustained in the motor accident.
2. The facts in brief are these: On September 21, 2000 at
about 2.45 p.m. the claimant in OP(MV) 1335/2000 was riding and
the claimant in OP(MV) 1334/2000 was pillion riding on the
motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/A 509 on Kodungallur –
Irinjalakuda road. At that time a Maruthi car bearing registration
No.PY 01/C 8209 driven by the 2nd respondent in the OP(MV) and
owned by the 1st respondent came at a high speed and dashed against
the motorcycle of the appellants/claimants. The appellants sustained
serious injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
M.A.C.A. 327 & 338 of 2007
2
driving of the offending Maruthi car by its driver, the 2nd respondent.
The car was insured with the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. The
claimant in OP(MV) 1334/2000 claimed a compensation of
Rs.1,20,000/- while the other claimant claimed a compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/-.
3. The owner of the motorcycle also has filed OP(MV) 36/2002
claiming Rs.13,361.35 for the damage caused to the motorcycle.
4. The 1st respondent, owner of the offending car, remained
absent and was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent in his written
statement contended that the rider of the motorcycle had no driving
licence and that the accident occurred due to his negligence. The 3rd
respondent, insurer of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement
admitting the policy.
5. The Tribunal by a common award dated November 30, 2005
granted a compensation of Rs.32,593/- to the claimant in OP(MV)
1334/2000, Rs.71,054/- to the claimant in OP(MV) 1335/2000 and
Rs.5930/- to the claimant in OP(MV) 36/2002. The claimants in OP
(MV) 1334/2000 and OP(MV) 1335/2000 have come up in appeal
challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Heard counsel for the appellants and that of the contesting
Insurance Company.
M.A.C.A. 327 & 338 of 2007
3
7. The accident was not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending car by the 2nd respondent is not challenged in this appeal.
Therefore the only question which arises for consideration is whether
the appellants/claimants are entitled to any enhancement of
compensation.
8. In OP(MV) 1334/2000 the Tribunal awarded compensation as
follows:-
cost of extra nourishment and
wages to attendants – Rs.1100/-
transportation - 300
medical expenses - 3993
loss of earning for three months - 4500
pain and suffering - 9000
loss of amenities - 2000
permanent disability - 11700
--------------
Total 32593
=========
9. The claimant in this case has sustained fracture of both bones
blow right knee, ligament injury or right ankle and also lacerated injury
and also lacerated injury on the left eyebrow as seen from Ext.A11
wound certificate and Ext.A12 treatment certificate. Ext.A13 disability
certificate shows that he has suffered a permanent disability of 7%.
M.A.C.A. 327 & 338 of 2007
4
He has sustained chronic synovitis of right ankle, stiffness of right
ankle, dorsiflexion restricted at terminal 100 as described in Ext.A13.
The Tribunal took his permanent disability only at 5%. As a contract
worker his monthly income was assessed at Rs.1500/- by the Tribunal
and awarded a compensation at Rs.11700/- towards the disability
caused. As a contract worker, in our view, he would have earned
atleast Rs.100/- per day. Therefore his monthly income can be
reasonably fixed at Rs.2000/-. As he was aged 48, the Tribunal
adopted a multiplier of 13 which is not seriously challenged. Thus
calculated, for the disability caused he is entitled for a compensation
of Rs.15,600/-. Thus on this count he is entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.3900/-.
10. Towards loss of earnings, a compensation of Rs.4500/- was
granted i.e. for three months at the rate of Rs.1500/-. As we have
fixed his monthly income as Rs.2000/-, towards loss of earnings he is
entitled to a compensation of Rs.6000/- i.e. an additional
compensation of Rs.1500/-.
11. For pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.9000/- which appears to be very low. Having
regard to the nature of the injuries sustained, we feel that a
compensation of Rs.12,000/- would be adequate on this count.
M.A.C.A. 327 & 338 of 2007
5
Therefore under this count the claimant is entitled to a further
compensation of Rs.3000/-.
12. For loss of amenities/enjoyment of life, the Tribunal
awarded a compensation of Rs.2000/-. Taking into account the
nature of the injuries sustained, we feel that towards loss of
amenities/enjoyment of life, he is entitled to a compensation of
Rs.4000/-. Thus on this count he is entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.2000/-.
13. Thus the appellant in MACA 327/2007 is entitled to an
additional compensation of Rs.10,400/-.
14. The appellant in MACA 338/2007 (claimant in OP(MV)
1335/2000) was a businessman aged 31. The Tribunal awarded a
compensation as follows:-
cost of extra nourishment Rs.3,500
transportation 200
medical expenses 29,494
loss of earnings 4,500/-
pain and suffering 12,000
loss of amenities 3,000
permanent disability 18,360
-------------------
Total 71,054
===========
M.A.C.A. 327 & 338 of 2007
6
15. The claimant in this case sustained fracture of both bones of
left leg, haemathrosis right knee, multiple small laceration in the
exterior and posterior aspect of right lower leg and other bodily
injuries. Ext.A4 is the wound certificate, Ext.A6 is the treatment
certificate and Ext.A7 is the disability certificate.
16. The Tribunal took his monthly income as Rs.1500/-,
adopted a multiplier of 17 and percentage of disability at 6% and
awarded a compensation of Rs.18,360/- for the permanent disability
caused. Taking into account the fact that the appellant was a
businessman aged 31, we feel that his monthly income can be
reasonably estimated at Rs.2000/-. Thus calculated, the appellant in
this appeal is entitled to a compensation of Rs.24,480/- towards the
disability caused i.e. additional compensation of Rs.6120/-. A sum of
Rs.4500/- was awarded towards loss of earnings i.e. for three months
at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. As we have found that the
monthly income of the claimant/appellant can be fixed at Rs.2000/-
per month, towards loss of earnings he will be entitled to a
compensation of Rs.6000/- i.e. additional compensation of Rs.1500/-.
For the loss of amenities/enjoyment of life, we feel that a
compensation of Rs.6000/- will be adequate. The Tribunal awarded
only Rs.3000/-. Therefore towards loss of amenities of life, the
M.A.C.A. 327 & 338 of 2007
7
appellant in this appeal is entitled to a further compensation of
Rs.3000/-. Thus calculated, the appellant/claimant in this appeal is
entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.10,620/-.
17. The claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs.
The 3rd respondent 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 appellants/claimants.
Both the appeals are disposed of as found above.
A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mt/-