Nabeel. N.K. vs P.K. Nazeer, U. Satheeshan and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thripuri Building, East Nadakkavu, Kozhikode

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The claimant in a motor accident claim is the appellant herein. He filed O.P(MV) No. 729/2004 before the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode claiming compensation for the injuries and disabilities allegedly sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident involving a vehicle owned by the 1st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal apportioned the negligence between the appellant and the driver of the vehicle owned by the 1st respondent equally. But, while awarding compensation only 25% was reduced on account of contributory negligence of the appellant. The Tribunal awarded the following compensation on various heads:

The appellant is aggrieved by the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

According to appellant, the appellant was in hospital for 15 days and therefore the compensation awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities is too low. It is also submitted that there is no evidence to prove contributory negligence and therefore no amount could have been reduced on account of contributory negligence.

We have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.

The Tribunal has given reasons for coming to the conclusion that the appellant contributed to the accident by his negligence. First of all, the respondents contended that the appellant was actually riding a motor cycle and not a bi-cycle. It was further noticed that there was a delay of 6 days in registering the FIR. In addition, the appellant had no case that any damage was caused to the bi-cycle. The Tribunal noticed that if the accident happened the way the appellant wanted the Tribunal to believe, certainly, the bi-cycle would have been damaged and the appellant would have sought compensation in respect of the same also. In addition to that, the appellant did not adduce any oral evidence. He only got copy of FIR marked, copy of wound certificate, reference card and medical bills marked. He did not go to the box to prove his contentions. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal regarding 25% contributory negligence and reduction of compensation on account of the same. Counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that the amounts awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenities are too low. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,000/-. Considering the fact that the appellant was hospitalized only for 15 days, we are not satisfied that the same calls for any enhancement. As far as the loss of amenities is concerned, we are not satisfied that without suffering any physical disability, any compensation on account of the loss of amenities can be given. For the period during hospitalization, what normally a claimant can claim is only loss of earnings during the period of hospitalization and compensation for pain and suffering. No compensation for loss of amenities can be claimed on the ground of hospitalization. But the Tribunal has in fact given Rs. 6000/- as compensation for loss of amenities. We do not think that any enhancement is called for in respect of the same also.

In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.