AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.239 of 2006 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. She had in O.P.(MV) No.239 of 2006 claimed the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that took place on 03.12.2005. She had in the claim petition averred that while she was walking along the public road, she was knocked down by a motor cycle bearing No. KL-10/V-9689 owned by the first respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent. She contended that in that accident she sustained fracture of both bones of the left leg and had to undergo treatment as an inpatient for five days. She had further averred that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent.
Though notice was served, respondents 1 and 2 did not enter appearance, with the result, they were set ex parte. The third respondent insurer entered appearance and filed a written statement admitting insurance coverage for the motor cycle. It however contended that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence. The insurer also contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and excessive.
The parties did not adduce any oral evidence before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. However, Exts.A1 to A9 and were produced and marked on the side of the claimant and Ext.B1 policy was produced and marked on the side of the third respondent. After considering the rival contentions, relying on the police records, the Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. The Tribunal thereafter awarded the sum of Rs. 56,100/- as compensation as detailed below.
Sl. No.
Head of Claim
Amount Claimed (in Rupees)
Amount Awarded (in Rupees)
Basis vital details in a nut shell
1
Medical & Hospital with bystanders expenses
10,000
7,834
2
Personal assistance
6,000
3
Extra nurishment
2,000
4
Transportation & Miscellaneous Expenses
2,000
5
Damage to clothing & articles
1,000
6
Pain & suffering
20,000
15,000
7
Disability
40,000
7,200
8
Loss of earning power
10,000
9
Loss of amenities & enjoyment
15,000
8,000
of life & loss of study
12,000
Total
1,00,000
56,034
Limited to/rounded to
56,100
Since the third respondent insurer had admitted insurance coverage and had not pleaded or proved breach of policy conditions, it was directed to pay the sum of Rs. 56,100/- (Rupees fifty six thousand and one hundred only) together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition (13.02.2006) till the date of realization as also proportionate costs. The claimant has, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Tribunal, filed this appeal.
We heard Sri. T.C. Suresh Menon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. A.R. George, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. Having regard to the fact that the third respondent insurer had admitted insurance coverage and had not pleaded or proved breach of policy conditions, we had while admitting the appeal dispensed with notice to respondents 1 and 2. The claimant had in the accident sustained fracture of both bones of her left leg. She was at that point of time aged only 12 years. Following the accident she had undergone treatment as an in-patient at Anugraha Hospital, Changaramkulam. Though Ext.A6 disability certificate discloses that the claimant had suffered 4% disability, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 7,200/- as compensation, taking the whole body disability as 2%. Apart from the loss of studies, it has not been proved that on account of the accident she has in any way been incapacitated. There is also no evidence to show that there is shortening of the left leg or that following the accident and surgery there is any disfiguration. Having regard to the nature of the injuries and period of hospitalization, we are not persuaded to hold that the compensation awarded under the heads disability, loss of amenities and loss of studies is on the lower side.
The Tribunal has however not awarded any compensation towards extra nourishment, transportation expenses and damage to clothing. The accident would have certainly resulted in damage to the clothing worn by the claimant. Her parents would have incurred expenditure to take her to hospital for review after discharge. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that a consolidated sum of 5,000/- should be awarded as compensation under the said heads. The medical records disclose that the claimant had suffered fracture of both bones of the left leg. She was subjected to surgery following the accident. She had also undergone treatment as an inpatient for a period of five days. Having regard to the injuries and the surgical procedure she had undergone, we are of the opinion that the compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering should be enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- from Rs. 15,000/-. We accordingly shall award a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation under the said head. The compensation awarded under the other heads does not in our opinion call for any interference.
We accordingly allow the appeal in part, and award to the appellant an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The third respondent insurer shall deposit the said amount together with interest at 8% from the date of petition till realization, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the amount deposited shall be disbursed to the claimant. The parties shall suffer their respective costs. Appeal partly allowed.