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 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 2774 of 2008(G) ----------------------- OPMV.889/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER ------------------------ ANNIE PETER, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.P.J.PETER, PUREPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHULLIL LANE, KOMBARA, COCHIN-682016. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. BIJU PETER, PUREPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHULLIL LANE, KOMBARA, COCHIN 682018. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM.COCHIN 682031. ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.2774 of 2008-G ***************************** Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. She suffered personal injuries in a motor accident which took place on 16.10.2000. She was a house wife. She suffered injuries including fracture of neck of right humerus. She was an inpatient for a period of 3 days. She was discharged with strapping of the right arm to the chest. The strapping was removed long later on 23.11.2000. Against a total claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.18,692/- as per the details given in para.6 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl.No. Heads of compensation Amount awarded 1) Medicalexpenses (supported by bills) Rs.1,692/- 2) Tramsportation and damage to clothes Rs.1,000/- 3) Attendant expenses and extra nourishment Rs.1,000/- 4) Shock, pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/- 5) Loss of earning Rs.3,000/- 6) Loss of amenities and convenience Rs.2,000/- Total Rs.18,692/- 2. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the insurance company is not liable to make the payment. M.A.C.A No.2774 of 2008-G 2 Accordingly the 1st respondent/rider/owner, who is none other than the son of the petitioner, was made liable to satisfy the award. Challenge has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant against the quantum of compensation awarded as also the exoneration of the insurance company from liability. 3. The learned counsel for the insurance company after perusal of the policy of insurance Ext.B1 does not now dispute the liability of the insurance company. The challenge on that ground therefore succeeds. 4. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on two specific grounds. The learned counsel contends that the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering is too inadequate considering that the appellant had suffered fracture of neck of right humerus; was inpatient for a period of 3 days and was treated by strapping of the arm to the chest for a period of about 35 days. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that the amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering deserves to be enhanced. M.A.C.A No.2774 of 2008-G 3 5. It is next contended that the amount awarded under the head of loss of earnings is insufficient and inadequate. Till 23.11.2000 after the accident which took place on 16.10.2000, the right arm of the appellant was strapped to the chest. The Tribunal must fairly have assumed that there must have been at least deprivation of the opportunity to work for a period of 2 ½ months. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. It is then contended that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per mensem is too inadequate. Reliance is placed on the presumption of prudence available under clause 6 of the Second Schedule. The learned counsel also places reliance on the decision in Lata Wadhwa V. State of Bihar [AIR 2001 SC 3218] which lays down that a non earning house wife/home maker can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. We accept that contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.9,500/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal as shown below. M.A.C.A No.2774 of 2008-G 4 i) Compensation for pain and suffering : Rs.5,000.00 (15,000 minus 10,000) ii) Loss of earnings : Rs.4,500.00 [(Rs.3,000 X 2.5 = Rs.7,500 minus 3,000)] ...................... Total : Rs.9,500.00 ======== 8. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves alteration/modification. 9. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.9,500/- (Rupees Nine thousand and five hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal; c) We make it clear that the entire amount shall bear interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal; d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. 10. We direct that the 2nd respondent shall satisfy the impugned award. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/