IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944 MACA NO. 2653 OF 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 1189/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

GEORGE M.T.

S/O.THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS, MECHAMALIL HOUSE,METHALA.P.O,ODACKALY, (VIA), KURUPPANPPADY.

BY ADVS.

SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.K.NIRMALAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 JAMAL S/O.MUHAMMED,KARIMBANACKAL HOUSE, THOTTAPPADAM,ALLAPRA,PERUMBAVOOR.P.O,PIN-683542.

2 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD PERUMBAVOOR-683542.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH,R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

05.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(M.V)No.1189/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha (in short, the Tribunal). The claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act), claiming total compensation of Rs.2,68,000/-, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident occurred on

01.08.2007.

2. It is alleged that while the appellant/claimant was walking through Kothamangalam – Perumbavoor public road and reached at Nellikuzhi Canal Bridge, motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-40-733 ridden by the first respondent hit him, resulting in serious injuries to the appellant. The accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the first respondent, owner cum rider. Second respondent is the insurer of the vehicle.

3. Before the Tribunal, first respondent filed written statement contending that the accident happened due to the negligence of the appellant/claimant and the claim under various heads are also contended to be excessive and exorbitant.

4. Second respondent, insurer, filed written statement admitting the policy coverage with respect to the offending vehicle.

5. PW1 examined and Exts.A1 to A10 marked from the side of the appellant/claimant. There was no evidence from the side of the respondents.

6. Tribunal on evaluating the evidence and the facts and circumstances, found that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the first respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,43,250/- which was allowed to realise with interest @ 8% per annum till the date of petition.

7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads, the appellant/claimant is before this Court in appeal for various grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal.

8. Notice as against first respondent is dispensed with.

Adv. Sri.Lal K. Joseph appeared on behalf of the second respondent, insurer.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent, insurer.

Lower court records were called for and perused.

10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant (hereinafter be referred as the claimant) he was a contractor and claimed a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. But Tribunal notionally fixed the income as Rs.3,500/-, which according to him is very low. He would also contend that the claimant sustained very serious injuries and though PW1, the doctor, issued a disability certificate assessing 13% permanent whole body disability, the Tribunal taken only 10% as the permanent disability. The compensation awarded under the heads; pain and suffering, loss of amenities etc. are also challenged by him and further contended that no amount was awarded towards bystander expenses. Hence he seeks for enchantment of compensation on all heads.

11. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. [(2011) 1 SCC

343 : 2011 ACJ 1 : 2010 KHC 5021] the Apex Court has dealt with the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases. Damages have been classified under the heads pecuniary damages (special damages) and non-pecuniary damages (general damages) in cases of personal injury matters. In case of routine per