THALASSERY BIPIN GEORGE v. JESON

JESON 8/1254, PAWETH HOUSE, KUNDAMTHADAM, CHERUPUZHA P.O PULINGOME AMSOM DESOM. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. KANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.AGI JOSEPH PREETHY R. NAIR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. No.1133/2013 : 2 : JUDGMENT The appellant, who was a minor boy aged 9 years, has filed OP(MV) No.1761/2005 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 15.08.2005. According to him, the vehicle involved in the accident was driven and owned by the 1 st respondent. The said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. Consequent to the accident, the appellant sustained very serious injuries and had undergone prolonged treatment. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances.

The 2nd respondent/insurer of the vehicle submitted a written statement disputing the quantum of compensation. However, they admitted the coverage of policy for the said vehicle.

The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 from the side of the appellants.

After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1 st respondent and being the insurer, the 2nd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as M.A.C.A. No.1133/2013 : 3 : Rs.55,550/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 2nd respondent with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. This appeal is submitted by the appellant in such circumstances seeking enhancement of compensation.

Heard Sri. B. Premnath, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Preethy R Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

The only question that arises here is whether any enhancement is necessary in the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that, despite the fact that the appellant suffered serious injuries, which included head injuries, a meagre compensation was awarded. On going through the materials placed on record, I find some force in the said contention. The nature of injuries sustained by the appellant as recorded in Ext.A2 wound certificate are as follows: “1.

2. 3. 4. 5. Dissociative motor disorder with post traumatic stress disorder. Difficult in walking Not speaking Pass urine in clothes all day. Child lost consciousness for ore than six hours.” M.A.C.A. No.1133/2013 : 4 :

Consequent to the injuries, he was admitted to Justice K.S. Hegde Charitable hospital and availed treatment. It was noticed that the appellant was suffering from cerebral oedema. The total period of hospitalisation extended upto 22 days in two spells. It is also discernible from the records that, he had undergone treatment at various hospitals and as per Ext.A8 certificate issued from Ashirvad hospital on 27.08.2005, the appellant suffered neurological disorder and the patient was referred to higher centre for expert management and evaluation. Considering the nature of the injuries, I am of the view that the amount awarded by the tribunal under the head of pain and suffering as well as loss of amenities and conveniences, etc., which were Rs.16,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively, were on the lower side. The records referred to above would clearly indicate the prolonged treatment of the appellant and the difficulties during such period and therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant a further sum of Rs.14,000/- under the head of pain and sufferings.

The learned counsel further sought some additional amount on account of the leave which the father of the appellant who was working at Behrain at the relevant time, was forced to M.A.C.A. No.1133/2013 : 6 : avail, and the expenses incurred for travel he undertook from abroad for attending the appellant. Exhibit A9 air ticket and A10 salary certificate of the father was relied on. However, the said contention cannot be accepted for more than one reasons; first of all, it cannot be treated as a direct consequences of the accident. Moreover, as far as Ext.A10 certificate is concerned, the same was not properly proved. In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable ground to accept the said contention. Thus, after considering all the relevant aspects, the additional compensation is determined as Rs.37,800/- (14000+20000+1000+2800).