IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 139 of 2006(C) ----------------------- OPMV.1981/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ------------------------------------ SUNITHA, D/O.SURENDRAN, KAVUNKAL THARA HOUSE, THEKKEMURI KARA, NADUVILA VILLAGE, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE SRI.S.SUDARSANAN RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. PRINCE, S/O.MATHEW, CHAKKALACKAL HOUSE, PATTITHANAM, ETTUMANOOR KARA, ETTUMANOOR, (DELETED). 2. O.M.JOSEPH, S/O.MATHEW, OTTAPLACKIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR KARA, ETTUMANOOR. 3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R3 SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.KURYAN THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.JOE KALLIATH FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A No.139 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. She, a woman, aged about 26 years claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by her in an accident which occurred on 09.04.1999. She claimed to be a tailor by profession earning an income of Rs.125/- per day. She suffered multiple injuries including fracture of greater tuberocity of left shoulder. Sprain of right ankle with laceration over the lateral malleolous were also suffered. She was treated as an inpatient from 09.04.99 to 25.04.99 (16 days). She was treated with plaster Cast and collar and cuff for her left shoulder. The plaster was removed on 21.04.1999. She had to continue treatment. For the shoulder, physiotherapy was done from 16.06.1999 to 30.06.1999. She allegedly suffered physical disability to the extent of 6%. Limitation of abduction of left shoulder (1100) and restriction of ankle movement (900-1250) is the permanent disability allegedly suffered. Extent of disability was assessed by a senior Lecturer M.A.C.A No.139 of 2006 2 in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam to be 6% under Ext.A18. 2. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to A20 were marked. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of Rs.15,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition. The break up of the amounts awarded is given below: i) Loss of earnings : Rs.3,000/- (2 X 1,500) ii) Medical expenses : Rs.1,000/- iii) Bystander's expenses: Rs.1,000/- iv) Compensation for pain and suffering : Rs.7,500/- v) Compensation for disability : Rs.3,000/- .............. Total : Rs.15,500/- ............... 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to raise against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that reasonable and just compensation has not been awarded. The counsel contends M.A.C.A No.139 of 2006 3 that the Tribunal did not award compensation for loss of earnings in a reasonable and fair manner. The documents produced clearly show that serious injuries including fracture of greater tuberocity of the left shoulder was suffered and the appellant was an inpatient from 09.04.99 to 25.04.99. Below knee, plaster slab was applied and collar and cuff was prescribed for the left shoulder injuries. She had to continue physiotherapy even after discharge. In any view of the matter it can easily be seen that there must have been total loss of earnings for a period far exceeding 2 months, contends the counsel. We find merit in that contention. We are satisfied that it can safely be assumed that total loss of earnings initially and partial loss of earnings later must have resulted. Reckoning the monthly income at Rs.1,500/-, we find it safe to give 4 months' income as compensation under the head loss of earning. 4. For transport to hospital, extra nourishment, damage to clothing and other articles, for medicines and treatment and for bystander's expenses though amounts were claimed, only a total amount of Rs.2,000/- is seen awarded. The medical bills produced did not inspire the confidence of the Tribunal. It is under such circumstances, the Tribunal awarded only an amount M.A.C.A No.139 of 2006 4 of Rs.2,000/- totally under all these heads. We take note of the nature of the injuries suffered, period of treatment as inpatient and the probable period of treatment thereafter as an outpatient. It would be idle to expect illiterate claimants to maintain meticulous accounts and to support all payments made by vouchers. Even in the absence of better evidence, fair and reasonable inferences can be drawn by the Tribunal taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances. Rigid and ritualistic insistence on production of documents is only likely to provoke parties to concoct documents. The appellant has been an inpatient for a period of 16 days and continued treatment as an outpatient thereafter. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied, that under the composite head of transport to hospital, extra nourishment, damage to clothing and other articles, medical and miscellaneous expenses and bystander's expenses, a total amount of Rs.8,000/- can safely be awarded in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. For pain and suffering, only an amount of Rs.7,500/- is seen awarded. We agree with the learned counsel that the amount fixed by the Tribunal is too low. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.12,000/- can safely be awarded under this head. M.A.C.A No.139 of 2006 5 Undoubtedly permanent disability is shown to have been suffered. Ext.A18 disability certificate indicates the nature of disability suffered. It is easy to come to that conclusion from the totality of circumstances. 6% is said to be the disability suffered. We note that the appellant, a woman, aged about 26 years on the date of the accident, claims to be a tailor. The nature of the alleged physical disability cannot be said to have any major impact on the earning of the appellant. However, we are satisfied that a global amount can be awarded as compensation for disability which will take into reckoning both dimensions of the relatively minor physical disability suffered, ie. the reflection of such disability on the earning power of the appellant as also in the quality of enjoyment of life which she can hereafter aspire to live. We are satisfied that a total amount of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded under this head. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amounts in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. i) Loss of earnings [(1500 X 4=6000) minus 3,000) : Rs.3,000/- M.A.C.A No.139 of 2006 6 ii) Medical and Miscellaneous expenses (8,000 minus 2,000) : Rs.6,000/- iii) Pain and suffering (12,000 minus 7,500): Rs.4,500/- iv) Global amount for physical disability (10,000 minus 3,000): Rs.7,000/- ............... Total: Rs.20,500/- ............... (Rupees Twenty thousand and five hundred only) 7. We further direct that the entire amount of compensation shall bear interest at the rate directed by the Tribunal from the date of the petition to the date of payment. 8. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-