Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 211 (KER)

Vijayan v. R. Manivannan

2011-02-21

A.K.BASHEER, P.Q.BARKATH ALI

body2011
Judgment :- Barkath Ali, J. Appellants in M.A.C.A.No.681/2005 are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.771/2001 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. Appellant in M.A.C.A.No.490/2005 is the third respondent therein. They challenge the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated December 1, 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.30,22,110/- for the loss caused to the first appellant in M.A.C.A.No.681/2005 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The facts in brief is this: On November 25, 2000 at about 8 a.m., while the first claimant/appellant No.1 herein was waiting for the company bus near Chanakya Hotel, Chandranagar , Palakkad, he was knocked down by the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-9/A 7030 ridden by the second respondent. Due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident, the first claimant is in a coma stage with unsound mind. Therefore, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal by his wife as next friend and guardian claiming a compensation of Rs.45,41,500/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the rider of the offending motor cycle filed a joint written statement admitting the accident, but attributed negligence to the first claimant. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending motor cycle filed a written statement admitting the policy of the offending vehicle. 4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A22 series were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the contesting third respondent. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 30,22,110/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition and a cost of Rs.45,500/- against respondents 1 to 3. The claimants and the Insurance Company have now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the respondents. 6. The accident is not disputed. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. If not, whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.30,22,110/-. the break up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under : Loss of earnings - Rs. 2,10,000/- Transport to hospital - Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs. If not, whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.30,22,110/-. the break up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under : Loss of earnings - Rs. 2,10,000/- Transport to hospital - Rs. 5,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 5,000/- Medical expenses - Rs. 6,86,100/- Bystander expenses - Rs. 48,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs. 75,000/- Loss of amenities - Rs. 75,000/- Disability - Rs.18,18,000/- Future treatment exp. - Rs. 1,00,000/- 8. The first claimant sustained the following injuries in the accident: Head injury, cerebral haemorrhage and brain damaged due to the head injury. 9. The claimant was aged 48 at the time of accident and was employed as Assistant Engineer in Malabar Cements earning Rs.15,000/- per month as salary as revealed from Ext.A14 his salary certificate. Medical records produced show that due to the injuries sustained, he is in a coma stage. His wife was aged 38 and has two children. 10. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we feel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and not excessive. That being so, the claimants are not entitled to any enhanced compensation. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.