IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 805 of 2004()
1. VALSALA, D/O.DEVAKI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SURESH.S., SARITHA BHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. BOBY, S/O.SETHU, BOBY VILASOM,
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :30/07/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A.No.805 OF 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Barkath Ali, J.
Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1579/99 on the file of
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur. She sustained a fracture
dislocation of right shoulder, fracture neck of humerus and fracture
greater tuberosity in a motor accident that occurred on November 4,
1999 at about 10 a.m. when the bus bearing Reg.No.KRN/3681 in
which he was travelling along Chadayamangalam-Pallickal public
road, toppled and fell down in to the canal below at Kallladathanny.
Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the driver of the
bus, the claimant filed the O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/-.
2. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the bus
respectively, remained absent before the Tribunal. The third
respondent, Insurance Company of the offending bus, filed a written
MACA.No.805/2004 2
statement admitting the policy of the bus.
3. This O.P. was jointly tried along with several other O.Ps.
filed by the other injured persons in the accident and a common award
was passed. The first claimant was examined as PW17 and Exts.A72
and A73 series were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side
of the contesting third respondent Ext.B1 was marked. On an
appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of
Rs. 31,468/- with interest @ 6% 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.
4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the
counsel for the Insurance Company.
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 challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only
question which arises for consideration is whether the claimants are
entitled to any enhanced compensation.
6. The break up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
MACA.No.805/2004 3
is as under :
Loss of earning - Rs. 3,000/-
Transportation expenses - Rs. 1,000/-
Extra nourishment - Rs. 1,000/-
Bystander expenses - Rs. 1,000/-
Medical expenses - Rs. 308/-
Pain and suffering - Rs. 5,000/-
Disability - Rs.20,160/-
7. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the
compensation for the disability caused and for medical expenses.
8. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as
Rs. 1500/- and took the percentage of disability as 7% and adopted a
multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs.20,160/- for the disability caused. The
claimant was aged 36 at the time of the accident. As a tailor, she used
to earn Rs.3,000/- per month, according to her. Therefore, we feel that
her monthly income can be reasonably fixed at Rs. 1,750/-. In
Ext.A72, certificate of disability, it is noted that claimant has suffered a
disability of 12% which appears to be reasonable in the light of the fact
that she has undergone 41 days inpatient treatment for post traumatic
stiffness of right shoulder in the Centre for Rehabilitation Care and
Research, Thiruvananthapuram. The multiplier of 17 adopted by the
MACA.No.805/2004 4
Tribunal is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for the disability
caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 42,840/- ( 12%
x 1750 x 12 x 17). Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an
additional compensation of Rs. 22,680/-.
9. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal awarded
Rs. 308/-. The Tribunal has discarded Ext.A73 series bills as there was
no office seal on the same. Taking into consideration the nature of the
injury sustained by the claimant and the period of treatment undergone
by her, we feel that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- would be
reasonable for the medical expenses incurred by her. Thus on this
count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of
Rs.9692/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads,
we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the
same.
10. There is another aspect in this case. The Tribunal awarded
interest only @ 6% per annum which appears to be very low. The
claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till realisation for the compensation already awarded and also
MACA.No.805/2004 5
for the enhanced compensation.
11. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs. 32,372/-. She is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till realisation for the compensation
already awarded and also for the enhanced compensation 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.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
sv.
MACA.No.805/2004 6
MACA.No.805/2004 7
MACA.No.805/2004 8