IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 388 of 2007(B) ---------------------------------- OPMV.1372/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : -------------------------------------- K.V.JOSEPH @ KUNJU, S/O.VARKEY, KAVUNGUMPILLI HOUSE, MALIPPARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------------------- 1. P.M.ANTONY, S/O.MATHAI, PUNNAKKUNNEL HOUSE, MALIPPARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ELENJICAL PLAZE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 388 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) 1372/03. The claimant, aged 61 years an agriculturist, sustained injuries in a road accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.41,880/-. Dissatisfied with that award, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. Learned counsel for the appellant had attacked the award on the following grounds: (i) The Tribunal has not awarded the real medical bills. (ii) The Tribunal erred in fixing the income at Rs.1,500/-. (iii) The Tribunal did not give reasonable expenses for transport. 3. With the aid of the learned counsel for the appellant, I had perused the statement relating to the medical bills. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company was also shown the same. I do not really understand what the Tribunal really meant to off shoot the expenses incurred for treatment. Towards the end of para 14 of the award, the Tribunal itself records that the petitioner expended a sum MACA No.388/07 2 of Rs.28,721/- for his treatment. But when it comes to the question of award it grants only Rs.11,380/-. The statement does not show that is in the form of an advance which is being adjusted. So taking into consideration these materials, atleast an amount of Rs.10,000/- more has to be awarded under that head. Regarding the second point being an agriculturist he was unable to do the work for four months. Certainly there would have been somebody to help him to look after his affairs. Even for that he may have to spend amount from his pocket. The fact that he would have been prevented from doing any work for four months is evident from the way in which he had undergone treatment in the hospital. He was treated as inpatient in the hospital from 13.5.03 till 20.5.03, 24.6.03 to 1.7.03 and 14.8.03 to 21.8.03. Therefore towards loss of earning or the amount supplied for supervision by others at the rate of Rs.2,500/-, I award Rs.10,000/- of which Rs.6,000/- is granted. Therefore the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,000/-. 4. Learned counsel submits that the distance between his place and the hospital where he had undergone treatment is about 60 Kms. When there had been three inpatient treatments, it is certain that thereafter he would have atleast visited the hospital on MACA No.388/07 3 two occasions. So it comes to five visits. Fixing the taxi fare at Rs.6/- per running kilometer, the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,600/- out of which Rs.1,500/- is awarded. So the balance amount would come to Rs.2,100/-. Therefore the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.16,100/-. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.16,100/- with 6.5% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation from the respondents. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.388/07 4