IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1869 of 2006(T) ------------------------ OPMV.506/1998 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- T.K. SAHADEVAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KANNANKUNJU, THAYYAPURA HOUSE, NORTH OF KURUMBAKYAVU TEMPLE, POIKKATTUSSERY CHENGAMANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT AND NOW AT C/O.M.V. SASI, LITTLE FLOWR KURIES & ENTERPRISES LTD., KUNNUMPURAM, FORTCOCHIN, COCHIN-1. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. T.S. SUSHIL RAJ, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, P.O. PANANGAD, VIA KODUNGALLUR. 2. SHAJU, S/O.GEORGE, MELADAN VEETIL, KATAPURAM BHAGOM, KORATTY KARA, MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS REGL.MANAGER, REGL.OFFICE, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN-35. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1869 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident that occurred on 24/6/1997. The claimant was aged 43 years on the date of the accident. He claimed to be a business man dealing in country bricks. He claimed that he was getting an income of Rs.5,000/- per mensum. He had suffered multiple fractures and head injuries. There was injury to the brain also. He was an in-patient for a period of 27 days. He had allegedly continued his treatment for a long time after the incident. He allegedly has suffered permanent disability. Ext.A7 disability certificate was issued by the medical board. It showed that the appellant has suffered disability to the tune of 8%. He was found to have stiffness of the right temperomandibular joint and disfigurement due to depression of right maxillary eminence. It is also certified that there is impairment of memory. He was, it is reported, on anti epileptic drugs which he will have to continue for a long period of time. M.A.C.A.No.1869/06 2 2. Before the tribunal Ext.A1 to A7 and Ext.B1 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced. The tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a total amount of Rs.1,71,099/- as per the details shown below: 1. Compensation for disability Rs.18,000/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 3. Transport to hospital Rs.2,000/- 4. Extra nourishment, bystander etc. Rs.2,700/- 5. Loss of amenities including disfiguration Rs.50,000/- 6. Loss of earnings for one year Rs.15,000/- 7. Medical Bills Rs.33,399/- Total Rs.1,71,099 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the tribunal has erred grossly in reckoning the multiplicand at Rs.1,250/- only for the claim of a business man aged 43 years who was having a wife and two children depending on him at the time of the accident. The M.A.C.A.No.1869/06 3 multiplicand reckoned is grossly inadequate and perversely low, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the insurance company, on the contrary, contends that a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and disfiguration in addition to the amount of Rs.18,000/- awarded as compensation for disability. In any view of the matter, the total amount awarded is absolutely fair, just and reasonable and the same does not warrant interference at all. In the total absence of any tangible evidence to indicate the employment and income of the claimant, the tribunal committed no error in fairly assuming that the appellant must have been earning an income of Rs.1,250/- per mensum. The incident took place in 1997, points out the learned counsel for the insurance company. 5. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we are satisfied that the total amount of Rs.1,71,099 under the various heads shown above is eminently fair, reasonable and just and the amount awarded by the tribunal does not at all warrant appellate interference. We are of the opinion that the M.A.C.A.No.1869/06 4 comparatively higher amounts awarded for the loss of amenities and pain and suffering neutralises and nullifies the criticism that a higher amount should have been reckoned as the multiplicand, that is the monthly earnings. Even that, on the basis of the materials available, does appear to be absolutely fair, reasonable and just. We are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned award by invoking the appellate jurisdiction. 6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.1869/06 5 M.A.C.A.No.1869/06 6 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009