SRUTHI Vs. P V K SUSEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal pertains to the claim for enhanced compensation submitted by the legal heirs of one deceased Madhavan Nair who sustained fracture of lateral wall of maxilla including zygomatic arch apart from multiple contusions, in a road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the third respondent who was driving a car duly insured with the second respondent Insurance Company. The claim petition was filed by Sri.Madhavan Nair represented by his next friend and wife as Madhavan Nair was not mentally sound. As Sri.Madhavan Nair died during the pendency of the O.P the present appellants were impleaded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The grievance of the present appellants is that as against their claim for a total amount of Rs. 2 lakhs the learned Tribunal fixed a total amount of Rs. 24,835/- as the compensation due and would release only 90% of the above amount on a finding that there was 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Madhavan Nair. The finding regarding contributory negligence and the adequacy of the compensation awarded is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) WE have heard the submissions of Sri.A.V.M.Salahuddin, the learned counsel for the appellants and also those of Sri.K.K.Unni, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

(3.) HAVING given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are in agreement with Sri.Salahuddin that the finding by the learned Tribunal that there was 10% contributory negligence on the part of the Madhavan Nair is wrong. We vacate that finding straight away. We find force in the submission that there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Having seen the nature of injuries sustained, we are of the view that there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering. We award to the appellants Rs. 7,000/- more towards pain and suffering.