VENU M. Vs. SIMI. S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No. 760 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, wherein he claimed the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place on 25.11.2008. By award passed on 6.4.2010, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded the sum of Rs. 13,978/- as compensation and directed the third respondent insurer to deposit the said amount together with interest at 7% per annum from 9.6.2009 till the date of deposit. The claimant has dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, filed this appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- At about 8.30 p.m. on 25.11.2008, while the appellant was riding a motor bike bearing registration No. KL-11 R-1796, a motor car bearing registration No. KL-11-X-3553 belonging to the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent, hit against the motor bike, resulting in injuries to the claimant and damage to his motor bike. The appellant/claimant was thereupon taken to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, where he underwent treatment during the period from 25.11.2008 to 1.12.2008.

(2.) The owner of the car remained absent and was set ex-parte. The driver of the car was deleted from the party array on application filed by the claimant. The third respondent insurer alone contested the claim petition by filing a written statement. In the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal no oral evidence was adduced on both sides, but Exts. A1 to A9 were produced and marked on the side of the claimant. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held relying on Ext. A1 F.I. Statement, Ext. A6 scene mahazar and Ext. A8 final report filed by the police that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the motor car by the second respondent. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also held that the claimant is entitled to receive the sum of Rs. 13,978/- as compensation under various heads. An award was accordingly passed directing the insurer who had admitted the existence of a valid insurance policy to deposit the said amount together with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. As stated earlier, the claimant has, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal filed this appeal. I heard Sri. K.M. Jamaludheen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. K.B. Ramanand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent insurer. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Ext. A2 wound certificate and Ext. A5 reference card issued from Medical College Hospital, Kozhikkode disclose that besides fracture of the left meta tarsal the claimant had sustained other injuries including dislocation of the left hip and a lacerated wound 8 cms. long and 3 cms. deep over the dorsal aspect of the left foot and a lacerated wound 5 x 1 cm below the left foot. The lacerated wound over the dorsal aspect of the left foot was a bone deep injury. Though the appellant had claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs. 8,000/- on that count. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ought to have in my opinion awarded at least half the amount claimed as compensation under the head pain and suffering, having regard to the fact that besides fracture of the left meta tarsal the appellant had suffered dislocation of the left hip and a bone deep injury over the dorsal aspect of the left foot. I accordingly award an additional amount of Rs. 7,000/- under the head pain and suffering. Likewise, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded only the sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards loss of earnings. The appellant was aged 39 years at the time of the accident. Though no evidence had been adduced by the appellant as regards his avocation, this Court can safely proceeded on the basis that even a manual labourer would have certainly get more than Rs. 2,000/- per mensem as wages during November 2008, when the accident took place. As a result of the injuries which included dislocation of the left hip and a bone deep injury over the dorsal aspect of the left hip the appellant would have been certainly incapacitated from doing any work at least for a period of two months. I accordingly award a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of earnings. One of the injuries namely dislocation of the left hip would have caused besides pain, considerable mental agony and distress. This Court can certainly take note of the anxiety and distress that would have been caused to the appellant who had sustained a serious injury like dislocation of the left hip and the inconvenience which he would have had to put up with till the dislocation is corrected. I accordingly award a sum of Rs. 1,000/- under the head loss of amenities.