IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 690 of 2006(B) ---------------------- OPMV.73/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ CARMELY W/O. ANTONY, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTTATHUSSERY HOUSE, EASTERN SIDE OF CHITTOOR CHURCH, CHITTOOR, CHERANALLORE. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SEBASTIAN SRI.P.A.BAHULEYAN SRI.PRADEEP KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SEENA, W/O. SATHYAN, AGED 38 YEARS, MULLOOR VEETTIL, ESI ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. 2. JOJAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 33 YEARS, ARAKATHARA HOUSE, NORTHERN SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE OF C.M.K. KRISHNAN, THAMARAVATTOM, EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MTPC CELL, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A No.690 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. She, a house wife aged about 55 years, suffered personal injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 02.09.2000 and claimed compensation. She had suffered injuries. The major injuries suffered was fracture of T12.vertebra. She was an inpatient for a period of 21 days. She continued treatment as an outpatient. She was advised rest for a period of 3 months after discharge. She allegedly had to engage bystanders. There is nothing to show that she had suffered any permanent physical disability. 2. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced. 3. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs awarded a total amount of Rs.18,200/- as compensation as per the details shown below. i) Medical Bills & miscellaneous : Rs.2,600/- ii) Loss of service for one month : Rs.1,000/- iii) Expense for bystander & extra nourishment : Rs.2,000/- (Rs.1,000/- each) M.A.C.A No.690 of 2006 2 iv) Expense for transportation : Rs.600/- v) Pain and suffering : Rs.12,000/- ................ Total Rs.18,200/- ................. The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 4. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on various grounds. The entire amount covered by the bills was awarded as compensation for medical expenses incurred. The counsel submits that the compensation awarded for loss of services -for one month @ Rs.1,000/- per mensem, is too inadequate. Even for a non earning person the second schedule in the Motor Vehicles Act permits the presumption that Rs.1,250/- is the monthly income. The appellant is a house wife and the available indications must suggest unmistakably that she must have been unable to pursue her normal avocation for a period of 4 months. We find merit in that contention. Nature of injuries as also the advice after discharge clearly show that she must have been unable to pursue her normal avocation for a M.A.C.A No.690 of 2006 3 period of 4 months. We are further satisfied that the notional value of her services can be reckoned as Rs.1,500/- per mensem. The appellant was an inpatient for a period of 21 days. Expenses for bystander and extra nourishment was awarded only at Rs.1,000/- each. We are satisfied that a higher amount deserves to be awarded under that head. 5. For pain and suffering only an amount of Rs.12,000/- has been awarded. The nature of injuries, nature of treatment and the period of hospitalisation as also the subsequent treatment given admittedly, persuade us to hold that the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation under this head. 6. No amount has been awarded under the head loss of amenities. Even assuming that the physical disability has not been proved satisfactorily it must be seen that the appellant must have suffered reduction in quality of life as a consequence of the accident and she deserves to be compensated under that head. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following amounts in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A No.690 of 2006 4 i) Loss of services [(4 X 1500) minus 1,000] : Rs.5,000/- ii) Expenses for bystander and extra nourishment (hospitalisation for 21 days) (3000 X 2 minus 4000) : Rs.2,000/- iii) Pain and suffering (15000 minus 12000) : Rs.3,000/- iv) Loss of amenities : Rs.7,500/- (no amount awarded) ................. Total : Rs.17,500/- ................ (Rupees Seventeen thousand and five hundred only) 8. Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation shall bear interest from the date of the petition till payment at the rate directed by the Tribunal. 9. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-