IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 788 of 2006() ---------------------------------- (O.P.(MV) Nos.274/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA) APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- PAULOSE K.V., S/O. VARKEY, RESIDING AT ASHA BHAVAN, KUNNAKKAL, VALAKOM, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.ANNIE PAUL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MURALI MOHANLAL, S/O. BHASKARAN, CHAKKUNGAL HOUSE, KOLANIKKARA, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ST.JOSEPH'S PRESS BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 ADV.SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 788 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) 274/02. The claimant, a retired teacher and an agriculturist, sustained injuries in a road accident. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.38,600/-. It is seen from the award that he had sustained a head injury with subdural haematoma. He was treated as inpatient for 7 days. The Tribunal did not grant any compensation for loss of earning. 2. It is contend by the learned counsel for the respondents that he is only a retired teacher and only an agriculturist and therefore, there would not have been any actual loss of earning for him. Even if he is an agriculturist, it requires supervision and in the absence of the owner of the property he would have deputed somebody to supervise the same and to do the periodical maintenance of the cultivation. Therefore, I feel this is a fit case where an amount of Rs.2,000/- can be granted under that head. MACA No.788/06 2 Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the compensation granted for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and enjoyment in life is totally inadequate. It can be seen from the treatment records that he had haematoma which was corrected by treatment. Fortunately there is no disability for the claimant. Therefore, it has to be held that the Tribunal has only assessed the compensation in the correct perspective under all those heads. Therefore nothing else remains to be enhanced. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.2,000/- with 7 % interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. 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.788/06 3