IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 2236 of 2008 ----------------------- OPMV.616/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/: PETITIONER ------------------------ HASHIM, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.AHAMEDKUTTY, NADAKKAVIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM (DT). BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. MUSTHAFA MANIPPURAM, S/O.SAIDALAVI, CHILAVIL MANIPPURAM HOUSE, THIRUVEGAPPURA (PO), MALAPPURAM (DT)(DRIVER). 2. K. DIVAKARAN, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, KALIADIPATTA.P.O, PATTAMBI, (OWNER). 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, PATTAMBI (PO),PALAKKAD (DT) (INSURER). ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R2 SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 2236 OF 2008 ============================ Dated this the 23rd day of September 2011 JUDGMENT R.Basant, J. The claimant is the appellant. He, a person aged 19 years, who claimed to be employed as an electrician earning a monthly income of Rs.4500/-, claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 2/11/2004. He had suffered multiple injuries like fracture of left radius, fracture of the second and third metatarsals of the right foot, fracture of two teeth on the upper row etc. He was an inpatient from 2/11/2004 to 9/11/2004. He had not suffered any permanent disability. For implant removal, he required a further surgery for which it was certified that he will have to incur an expenditure of Rs.9500/-. The appellant claimed a total amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation. The Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs.57,000/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 16 which we extract below: 1. Transport to hospital : Rs.1,500/- 2. Damage to clothing : Rs. 500/- 3. Expenses of bystander : Rs. 800/- 4. Medical bills : Rs.23,600/- 5. Extra nourishment :Rs. 1,000/- 6. Pain and suffering :Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of amenities :Rs. 5,000/- 8. Future treatment :Rs. 9,500/- ----------------------- Total :Rs. 56,900/- Rounded to :Rs. 57,000/- ========== 2. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation. The Insurance Company has been made entirely liable to satisfy the award. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance company. 4. Called upon to explain the challenge and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on two specific grounds. No amount has been awarded under the head of loss of earnings, submits the learned counsel. It is further submitted that the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering is too inadequate considering the nature of injuries. 5. We have considered these submissions. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant and there is an omission to award any amount of compensation under the head of loss of earnings. In the absence of any better evidence, we are satisfied that the appellant must have been earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. We are further satisfied that it can safely be accepted that the nature of injuries and the treatment must have rendered the appellant incapable of rendering any work for a period of two months, the appellant is hence entitled for an amount of Rs.6,000/-as compensation for loss of earnings (2x3000). 6. An amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded under the head of pain and suffering in addition to the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded under the head of loss of amenities. As stated earlier, there is no disability suffered. We are unable to agree that the amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering is in any view of the matter inadequate. No other specific contention has been raised. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.6,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 8. In the result, a)this appeal is allowed in part. b)The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.6,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c)We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the Tribunal. d)All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, JUDGE ks. M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 2236 OF 2008 ============================ Dated this the 23rd day of September 2011 ORDER R.Basant, J. Respondent No.1 has not been served. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation and the third respondent – Insurance company has been made entirely liable. This appeal filed in 2008 is said to be defective even now. We are satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of fresh notice to respondent No.1. Service is thus held to be sufficient and complete. C.M. APPLN. NO. 2277/2008 This petition is to condone the delay of 265 days in filing the M.A.C.A. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We take a lenient view. This petition is allowed. Delay is condoned. R.BASANT, JUDGE ks. M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.