IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 359 of 2003(C) ----------------------- APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV): ---------------------------------------- K.V.VARGHESE, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, KAVANAKUDY HOUSE, MEENANGADI POST, PURAKKALI AMSOM DESOM, S.BATHERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV): ----------------------------------------------- 1. BHASKARAN, S/O.PARAMESHWARAN, KAPRADAN HOUSE, KALOOR, KALLOOR POST, NOLLPUZHA AMSOM DESOM, S.BATHERY TALUK. (DRIVER OF KLW 2550 BUS) 2. P.K.POULOSE, PAZHUKALAYIL HOUSE, CHETHALAYAM POST, S.BATHERY. (OWNER OF KLW 2550 BUS) 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NOORANAL BUILDINGS, S.BATHERY. (POLICY NO.100311/31/40/0632/94) R3 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 359 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He had claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered in a motor accident that took place on 08.04.95. He claimed an amount of Rs.1 lakh as compensation. The claimant was aged 42 years and was a coolie by profession. According to him, his income was Rs.1,800/- per mensem. He was initially taken to a nearby hospital from which he was referred to the Medical College, Calicut. The main contention raised was that the appellant had suffered only external injuries. At the Medical College he continued treatment for a period of 4 days. Even though it is asserted that the appellant had suffered permanent physical disability, there is nothing to indicate such disability if any. 2. The claimant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.A1 to A8 series. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the appellant is MACA:359/03 -:2:- entitled for an amount of Rs.5,400/- as compensation as per the details shown below. 1. Transport expenses :Rs. 300/- 2. Medical expenses :Rs. 900/- (against actual bills produced) 3. Loss of income (2x1,000) :Rs.2,000/- 4. Damage to clothing :Rs. 100/- 5. Extra nourishment :Rs. 100/- 6. Pain and suffering :Rs.2,000/- --------------- Total :Rs.5,400/- ========= 3. Interest was directed to be paid at the rate of 9% per annum. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the appellant had really suffered permanent disability and there was no attempt by the Tribunal to ascertain such permanent disability, if any. Surprisingly and significantly there is no semblance of data placed before the Tribunal to persuade the Tribunal to hold that the appellant deserves to be referred to a Medical Board. Though the appellant had been under treatment in the Medical College for four days, there is nothing to show that there was any internal injury and any consequent physical disability suffered by the appellant. MACA:359/03 -:3:- According to us, in the circumstances, the course adopted by the Tribunal of not sending the appellant to any Medical Board does not warrant any appellate interference. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the monthly income of the appellant has been reckoned as Rs.1,000/- only. He asserted that the actual income of the appellant at the time of accident was Rs.1,800/- per month. Counsel relies on the presumption of prudence incorporated in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. Even for a non-earning person the law from 1994 makes the assumption of prudence that the notional income can be reckoned at Rs.1,250/- per mensem. We agree with the learned counsel. In these circumstances, the monthly income of the appellant can safely be reckoned as asserted by him at Rs.1,800/- per mensem. For loss of income the appellant shall hence be entitled for a further amount of Rs.1,600/-. 5. Counsel then contends that under the head pain and suffering, reasonable amounts must have been awarded. The appellant was taken immediately after the accident to a local MACA:359/03 -:4:- hospital. From there he was referred to the Medical College Hospital. Obviously, internal injury was suspected, though there is nothing in evidence to indicate that any such internal injury was actually suffered. He was an in-patient for a period of 4 days. He had to continue treatment as an out-patient. Taking all these circumstances into account we agree that the compensation for pain and suffering can safely be fixed at Rs.6,000/-(Rs.4,000/- more). The appellant was in the hospital for four days and no amount has been awarded under the head bystander's expenses. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.400/- (4 x 100) can be awarded under that head. We are satisfied that the amounts awarded under no other head deserves interference. 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. 1. Loss of income(1,800 x 2 minus 2,000) :Rs.1,600/- 2. Bystander's expenses (4 x 100) :Rs. 400/- 3. Pain and suffering (6,000 minus 2,000) :Rs.4,000/- --------------- Total :Rs.6,000/- ========= 7. Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation shall MACA:359/03 -:5:- carry interest from the date of the petition at the rate directed by the Tribunal. 8. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part, to the above extent. R. BASANT, JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE ttb MACA:359/03 -:6:- MACA:359/03 -:7:-