IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 711 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.1679/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- BINU, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KIZHAKKAPURATHKUDY HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR P.O., KOOVAPPADY. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYARAM SUBRAHMANI SRI.P.K.NISHAD (PUZHITHARA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SAJI KUMAR, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, PALLATH HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE. 2. K.T.JOY, KOCHUKACHELIL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA. (DELETED) 3. SHAJI M.S., S/O.SEKARAN, MANGATTU HOUSE, PANIELI KARA, KOMBANADU VILLAGE. 4. K.G.SHANMUGHAN, KOTTACKAL HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, KOOVAPPADY. 5. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. P.B.NO.24, MULLAPPILLY BUILDINGS, A.M.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R4 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R5 R2 IS DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF RESPONDENTS AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.2304 OF 2011 DATED 27/9/2011. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.711 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 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 25/6/1999. He had suffered multiple injuries. He had suffered fracture of right frontal bone and pheumocephalus in the right fronto parietal region. He did not suffer any permanent physical disability as a result of the accident. Against a total claim of `1,10,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of `59,597/- as per the details given below: Sl.No Name of Head Amount awarded Part-I 1 Transport to hospital Rs.1,000/- 2 Damage to clothing Rs.250/- 3 Medical expenses Rs.35,347/- 4 Extra nourishment Rs.1,000/- 5 Expenses for attendance Rs.1,000/- 6 Compensation for loss of amenities Rs.8,000/- 7 Compensation for loss of expectation in life .... 8 Loss of earnings Rs.3,000/- (2 x 1500) M.A.C.A. No.711 of 2007 -: 2 :- Sl.No Name of Head Amount awarded Part-II 1 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- 2 Compensation for continuing permanent disability ..... 3 Compensation for mental shock ...... Total Rs.59,597/- The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest and cost. 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Inadequacy of quantum of compensation is the only plank of challenge. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant challenges the quantum of compensation awarded under two specific heads. 3. First of all, it is contended that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of earning is totally inadequate. The Tribunal had assumed `1,500/- to be the monthly income. It had also assumed that there must have been involuntary unemployment for a period of two months only. The appellant was a carpenter. According to him, `3,000/- was his monthly income. The claim was modest and the same ought to have been accepted, contends counsel. At least three months M.A.C.A. No.711 of 2007 -: 3 :- loss of earnings should have been granted considering the nature of the injuries (fracture of the frontal bone) and the nature of the employment of the appellant (carpenter). We find merit in that contention. We are satisfied that `3,000/- can be assumed to be the monthly earnings and even in the absence of any better evidence, it can be assumed that there must have been involuntary unemployment for a period of three months. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that for pain and suffering endured, reasonable compensation has not been awarded. Only `10,000/- has been awarded. He was an inpatient for a period of 9 days. There was bleeding from the nose. He vomitted several times after the injury. Serious head injury was suspected. In these circumstances, the award of only an amount of `10,000/- as compensation for the physical and mental pain and suffering is not justified. The learned counsel takes the court through the relevant discussions in paragraph-15 of the award and contends that the Tribunal had omitted to note that there was fracture of the frontal bone. In any view of the matter, the amount of `10,000/- awarded is inadequate, contends counsel. The learned counsel for the insurance company points out that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering - i.e., `10,000/-, is adequate. The learned M.A.C.A. No.711 of 2007 -: 4 :- counsel further points out that under the head of loss of amenities an amount of `8,000/- has already been awarded notwithstanding the fact that admittedly no permanent physical disability has resulted. 5. We take note of the nature of the injuries. We take note of the period of hospitalization. We take note of the agony which the appellant must have undergone. We are satisfied that an amount of `12,500/- can be fixed as quantum of compensation for pain and suffering. 6. We are not persuaded to agree that the impugned award warrants interference on any other grounds. 7. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of `8,500/- (Rupees eight thousand and five hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal as per the details shown below: 1. Loss of earnings (`3,000/- x 3 months i.e., `9,000/- minus `3,000/-) - `6,000/- 2. For pain and suffering (`12,500/- minus `10,000/-) - `2,500/- ----------- Total - `8,500/- ===== M.A.C.A. No.711 of 2007 -: 5 :- 8. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of `8,500/- (Rupees eight thousand and five hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. (c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the Tribunal in the impugned award. (d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge M.A.C.A. No.711 of 2007 -: 6 :- R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- C.M. Appl. No.716 of 2007 in M.A.C.A. No.711 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2011 ORDER This petition is to condone the delay of 382 days in filing the M.A.C.A. Heard. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. R. BASANT (Judge) M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/