IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1999 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.37/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- VELAYUDHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN, MUNDAKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------ UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MANJERI. ADV. SRI.JOHN KOSHY FOR R.1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1999 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February 2009 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injury suffered in a motor accident. An amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs was claimed. He is a coolie by profession. He was an in- patient for 8 days. He had suffered head injury. There was fracture anterior and posterio lateral walls of right maxillary antenum. Multiple fractures were suffered on the right zygomatic arch. The resultant physical disability was assessed at 1%. Persistent head ache and pain of right upper jaw on chewing is the alleged disability. Permanent disability was certified by the doctors. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.12,951/- as compensation. The claimant laments that just and fair compensation has not been paid. 2. Called upon to explain, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the quantification by the Tribunal on three specific grounds. First of all, it is contended that the Tribunal had omitted to grant any amount as compensation under the head loss of earnings. The petitioner is a coolie and his income was reckoned M.A.C.A.No.1999/06 2 at Rs.1,250/- per month only. He is aged 52 years and a reasonable higher amount must have been reckoned as monthly earnings, it is contended. 3. In the absence of better evidence, we find that the Tribunal committed no error warranting interference in fixing the monthly income as Rs.1,250/-. We are satisfied, considering the nature of injuries and the period of hospitalisation that the petitioner must have been involuntarily unemployed as a a result of injuries for a period of two months consequently, the claimant is entitled for an amount of RS.2,500/- (Rs.1,250/- x 2) more as compensation for loss of earnings. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that though an amount of Rs.1,651/- has been awarded for disability suffered adopting the multiplier multiplicand method, no compensation whatsoever has been awarded for loss of amenities. The resultant disability of head ache and difficulty in chewing has reflection and ramification in the quality of enjoyment of life and this aspect was completely ignored by the Tribunal while computing compensation. We note that the reduction in earning capacity as a result of the disability must be minimal and an amount of Rs.1,651/- awarded as compensation for disability well takes care of that dimension of the loss suffered on account of disability. But for the impairment and reduction for the quality of enjoyment of M.A.C.A.No.1999/06 3 life, we are satisfied that the appellant deserves to be compensated and award of a further amount of Rs.7,500/- under this head shall be eminenly reasonable. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant further points out that though specific evidence has not been made available to the Tribunal in the form of medical bills and vouchers, reasonable inference must have been drawn on the basis of the nature of injuries, the nature of treatment/the period of hospitalisation. We are satisfied that it will be idle in all cases to look for specific vouchers and bills to prove medical expenses, reasonable minimum amounts can be awarded even without production of documents drawing appropriate reasonable and rational inferences. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for an amount of RS.2,000/- as compensation for medical expenses which must have been incurred. 5. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant/claimant is entitled for the following further amounts by way of compensation under the heads shown below: i) Loss of earnings - Rs.2,500 (Rs.1,250 x 2) ii) Compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment - Rs.7,500/- of life consequent to the physical disability M.A.C.A.No.1999/06 4 iii) Medical expenses which - Rs.2,000/- must have been incurred Total - Rs.12,000/- 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further points out that interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. The counsel argues that interest @7% per annum must have been granted. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. In the result, a) This M.A.C.A. is allowed in part. b) The impugned award is modified and it is held that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) in addition to the amounts already ordered by the Tribunal as compensation. c) Interest shall be payable @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition on the total amount payable including the amounts awarded in this judgment. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.1999/06 5 M.A.C.A.No.1999/06 6 R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009