IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1072 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1560/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ JIJESH M., S/O.LAKSHMANAN, AGED 30 YEARS, POOVATHADATH HOUSE, P.O.MOWANCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SAINABA, W/O.MUHAMMED, SHAHALA MANZIL, ATTASSERY, P.O.MORAYUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 638. 2. PANAMPATTA SREENIVASAN, S/O.VELUNNI, THAVALAPARAKKAN HOUSE, MORAYUR AMSOM DESOM, THAVALAPARA, P.O.KONDOTTI - 673 638, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KANNUR - 670 001. (POLICY NO.760200/31/04/01731). THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1072 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 15/3/2005. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of `1,43,200/- as per the details given in paragraph-21 of the award. We have gone through the details. 2. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on two specific grounds. First of all, it is contended that the amount of `56,900/- awarded under the head of medical and miscellaneous expenses is too inadequate. Ext.A7 series are the bills produced. The Tribunal subjected the bills produced to scrutiny. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that all except two bills for a total amount of `8,000/- can be accepted. Deducting that `8,000/- which, according to the Tribunal, is not M.A.C.A. No. 1072 of 2011 -: 2 :- justified by the treatment records; rest of the claim was accepted. The learned counsel argues that the Tribunal has gone wrong in not accepting the said bills for `8,000/-. We have gone through the relevant discussion which appears in paragraph-14. We are not persuaded to agree that the approach made by the Tribunal is incorrect or warrants appellate correction. 3. The next ground of challenge is that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal is insufficient. This has got reflected both in the compensation awarded for loss of earnings (for a period of 4 months) as also the compensation for reduction in earning capacity. Only an amount of `12,000/- (4 x `3,000/-) and `42,840/- (`3,000/- x 12 x 7/100 x 17) have been awarded under the relevant heads. The appellant had produced medical certificate Ext.A9 to show that the appellant gets an income of `4,500/- per mensem from a private employer - Sruthi Auto Electricals, Kannothumchal. That certificate Ext.P9 has not been proved satisfactorily. There was only oral evidence of the appellant as P.W.1. The Tribunal did not place reliance on Ext.A9 and the oral evidence of P.W.1; but did take note of all the relevant inputs to sail to the conclusion that the monthly income could not have been below `3,000/-. On the question of quantum of monthly income also, we are unable to agree that the Tribunal M.A.C.A. No. 1072 of 2011 -: 3 :- has committed any such error warranting appellate interference. 4. We come to the conclusion that the total amount of compensation awarded `1,43,200/- is just and reasonable and that, at any rate, the award does not warrant interference on the grounds raised above. 5. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge M.A.C.A. No. 1072 of 2011 -: 4 :-