Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. ND FRIDAY, THE 22 DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 MACA NO. 2037 OF 2013 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 24.08.2012 IN OP(MV) NO. 108/2011 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KALPETTA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THENSEEM (MINOR) DATE OF BIRTH 29.8.2002, S/O NAZAR T., REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN, MOTHER, ISATHUNNISA T., W/O NAZAR T., THAYYIL HOSUE, BEERANKUTTY QUARTERS, MEPPADY POST, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: 1 MOHANRAJ AGED 44 YEARS S/O SAMUEL, VARIYEL HOUSE, KOTTANAD POST, MEPPADY- 689 615. 2 THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, RAWTHER BUILDING, NEAR PINANGODE ROAD JUNCTION, MAIN ROAD, KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673 121. SRI P K MANOJKUMAR-R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) 108 of 2011on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Triibunal, Kalpetta. The said claim petition was submitted by her seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 18.10.2010. According to him, the appellant was hit by an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL 10V/4485, while walking through the road. The said autorickshaw was owned and driven by the 1st respondent and was insured with the 2 nd respondent. She was a minor aged 8 years at the time of the accident and she sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
2. The 1st respondent filed a written statement admitting the accident but disputed the negligence. The 2 nd respondent filed a written statement admitting the insurance coverage for the said vehicle, but the liability was disputed. The quantum of compensation was also opposed by them.
3. The said claim petition was tried along with OP(MV) No.109/2011, which was from the very same accident. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A9 and the disability certificate was marked as Ext.C1.
4. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the 1 st
respondent and being the insurer, the 2 nd respondent was held
liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.45,800/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is submitted by the appellant in such circumstances for enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard Smt.Celine Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar - learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company.
6. The only dispute in this case relates to the quantum of
compensation. It is discernible from Ext.C1 Certificate that the appellant did not sustain any physical disability. However, it is evident from the records that the injuries sustained were serious, which are as follows:
1.1. Patient in altered sensorium and restless 1.2. Abrasion over left knee and left side of the face with pain. 1.3. Superficial abrasion and haematoma left thigh 1.4. Fracture left parietal occipital and temporal bones. 1.5. C.T.Scan of head showed left parietal orbital (thin) sub dural haemorrhage, equivocal evidence of diffused cerebral oedema. 1.6. Temporal parietal and parietal occipital depressed fracture.
7. It is also discernible from the records that consequent
to the injuries, she had to avail of inpatient treatment for a period of 11 days. She was a student aged 8 years. On going through the various heads of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it appears that the amount awarded under pain and suffering was on the lower side. The amount awarded by the Tribunal in this regard was Rs.10,000/-, which requires reconsideration in light of the nature of the injuries she sustained. It is evident that, it
included fractures and head injuries as well. In such circumstances, I am of the view that taking note of the injuries, the period of treatment she had undergone, and its consequences, an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- is to be granted under the head pain and suffering.
8. Similarly, no amount is awarded towards the loss of amenities. Considering the nature of injuries, I am of the view that some amount ought to have been awarded under this head. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant
a further sum of Rs.15,000/- under this head. Thus, the additional compensation is determined to be Rs.35,000/-. In the light of the aforesaid observations and finding, this
appeal is allowed. The award dated 24.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Triibunal, Kalpetta in OP(MV) No. Rs.35,000/- to the appellant, which shall be deposited by the 3 rd respondent Insurance Company with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate cost within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that as the appeal was filed with a delay of 303 days, the 3rd respondent Insurance Company shall be at liberty to exclude the said period while computing the interest on the additional amount.
Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE lsn