Kerala High Court
Thara Bhavani M.S vs Edwin on 16 March, 2022
MACA NO. 1842 OF 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943
MACA NO. 1842 OF 2012
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1302/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
THARA BHAVANI M.S
D/O. N. MANMADHANKUTTY, KAMALA SADANAM,
KALVAMKODAM.P.O., CHETHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
S.EASWARAN
K.V.RAJESWARI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 EDWIN,
S/O. VARGHESE, PANACKAL VEEDU, THURAVOOR PANCHAYAT
WARD NO. 14, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
2 JOSEPH SIMENTH,
PANDARAPPARAMBATHU VEEDU, OCHANTHURUTHU, ERNAKULAM.
3 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONKSRTC
FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 1842 OF 2012
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(MV)
No.1302/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Alappuzha. The respondents in the appeal
were the respondents before the Tribunal.
2. The appellant, had filed the claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988,
claiming compensation on account of the injuries
sustained to her in an accident on 28.11.2003. It was
her case that, while she was studying for Plus One
course at the Thuravoor T.D.School, as she was
alighting from the bus bearing Reg.No.KL-15-2784
(bus), belonging to the 3rd respondent, the Conductor -
the 2nd respondent had negligently gave the bell and
the driver - the 1st respondent negligently moved the
bus. Accordingly, the appellant fell down by hitting her
face on the ground and suffering injuries, including a
fracture of the left para symphysis of the mandible,
MACA NO. 1842 OF 2012
fracture of the right ramus of the mandible and
undisplaced nasal bone fracture. She was treated as
an inpatient at the KVM Hospital, Cherthala and the
Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research
Centre, from the date of accident till 13.12.2003.
Hence, the appellant claimed a compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondents.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the
proceeding and were set ex parte.
4. The 3rd respondent had filed a written statement
denying negligence on the part of the respondents 1
and 2. The 3rd respondent also disputed the age,
income and occupation of the appellant.
5. The appellant was examined as PW1 and Exts.
Exts.A1 to A14 were marked in evidence.
6. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and
materials on record, allowed the claim petition, in part,
by permitting the appellant to recover from the 3 rd
MACA NO. 1842 OF 2012
respondent an amount of Rs.84,100/- with interest and
a cost of Rs.641/-.
7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner is in appeal.
8. Heard; Sri.S.Easwaran, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/petitioner and Sri.Alex
Antony, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd
respondent-owner.
9. The sole point that arises for consideration
in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just?
10. Undisputedly, the appellant has not
produced any disability certificate to prove that she
had suffered any permanent/functional disability as a
result of the injuries sustained to her in the accident.
Nevertheless, it is proved that she was treated as an
inpatient from 28.11.2003 to 13.12.2003, i.e for a
period of 15 days in two hospitals. She had also
MACA NO. 1842 OF 2012
suffered three fractures on her face. As against the
claim of Rs.50,000/- each, under the heads 'pain and
sufferings' and 'loss of amenities', the Tribunal has
awarded only an amount of Rs.25,000/- each under
the two heads. I find the same to be on the lower
side.
11. Considering the fact that the appellant was a
young lady aged 20 years and a student, and taking
note of the injuries suffered by her, I am of the view
that she is entitled to a further amount of Rs.10,000/-
under the head 'pain and sufferings' and Rs.15,000/-
under the head 'loss of amenities'.
12. With respect to the other heads of
compensation, I find the same to be reasonable and
just.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, in part, by
enhancing the compensation by a further amount of
Rs.25,000/- (i.e., Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/-
MACA NO. 1842 OF 2012
respectively under the heads 'pain and suffering' and
loss of amenities') with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit and a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The 3rd respondent
is ordered to deposit the enhanced compensation
with interest and cost before the Tribunal within a
period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of the judgment. Immediately on the
compensation amount being deposited, the Tribunal
shall disburse the compensation amount to the
appellant/petitioner in accordance with law.
ma/16.03.2022 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
/True copy/
