IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 299 of 2006 ---------------------- OPMV.20/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- SUNIL GEORGE @ PHILIP, S/O.GEORGE KUZHIPPALAYIL HOUSE, EDAPPADY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. VINOD P.S. S/O.SEBASTIAN, PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE,EDAPPADY P.O. 2. SIBY CHERIAN, MATTATHIL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR SOUTH P.O. 3. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PALA. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 SRI.M.C.CHERIAN FOR R2 SMT.SARAMMA CHERIAN FOR R2 SMT.ASHA CHERIAN FOR R2 SRI.M.A.THOMAS KUTTY FOR R2 SRI.P.M.SANEER FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 299 OF 2006 ============================ Dated this the 24th day of August 2011 JUDGMENT R.Basant, J. The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 12/8/2001. Against the total claim of Rs.2,85,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.36,739/- as compensation as per the details shown below: Sl.No. Head of the claim Amount awarded 1 Loss of earning Rs.8,000/-(2000x4) 2 Transport to hospital Rs.1,000/- 3 Damage to clothing and articles Rs. 250/- 4 Bystander expenses Rs.1,000/- 5 Extra nourishment Rs. 250/- 6 Hospital expenses Rs. 6,239/- 7 Pain and suffering Rs.12,000/- 8 Compensation for disability nil 9 Loss of earning power nil 10 Loss of amenities of life Rs. 8,000/- Total Rs.36,739/- ========== 2. The appellant claims to be running a computer Centre by name Digital Net Dot Com at Palai. He was travelling on a MACA 299/2006 -2- motor cycle when the accident took place. He was a pillion rider. He had suffered injuries including fracture of pubic bone. He was an inpatient from 12/8/2001 to 30/8/2001. He had allegedly suffered physical disability which is certified in Ext.A6 disability certificate. He allegedly had restriction of rotation movement of the right hip and that was said to amount to 4% permanent functional disability. The certificate was thrust into court. No attempt was made to prove the said certificate in accordance with law. No witness was examined also. The injured did not examine himself nor was any steps taken to get the victim referred to the Medical Board. The physical disability was not demonstrated to the Tribunal also. 3. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that the alleged physical disability could have resulted only in loss of amenities of life and hence awarded only Rs.8,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. His monthly income was reckoned at Rs.2,000/- per mensem. 4 months involuntary unemployment was presumed and an amount of Rs.8,000/- (2000x4) was awarded as compensation under that head. MACA 299/2006 -3- 4. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Insurance company and the learned counsel for the owner have advanced their arguments. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on various grounds. 5. First of all it is contended that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per mensem is inadequate. Reliance was placed on the contemporaneous Ext.A1 F.I. statement, which itself reveals that the appellant was running a computer centre by name Digital Net Dot Com. No better evidence was produced about the employment or income of the appellant. But we are of the opinion that necessary irresistible and safe inferences can be drawn from the inputs available. Clause 6 of the 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act permits the presumption to be drawn as early as in 1994 that all non earning person can also be presumed to earn Rs.1250/- per month. Reliance was also placed in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar[A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 3218] which lays down that even a non earning home maker/house wife can also be assumed to MACA 299/2006 -4- earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per month. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that it is safe in the facts and circumstances of the case be assume that the monthly income of the claimant/appellant would not have been below Rs.3000/-. 6. The learned counsel contends that 4% physical disability must have resulted in reduction in earning capacity at least to the identical extent. The Tribunal had considered that aspect. The Tribunal did not accept the case of the appellant that reduction in earning capacity had resulted. We find no reason to interfere with that conclusion reached by the Tribunal. We need only say that there is no satisfactory evidence in support of the alleged physical disability or the reduction in earning capacity following such disability. The Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.8000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life. Considering the nature of injuries, the period of treatment and the meager evidence was available about the physical disability suffered, we are in agreement that Rs.12,000/- can be awarded under the loss of amenities. MACA 299/2006 -5- 7. Under the head of by-stander expenses and extra nourishment, only a total amount of Rs.1250/-(1000 + 250) has been awarded. The appellant was an inpatient for a period of 19 days. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that a total amount of Rs.3800/-(19 x 200) can be awarded under the composite head of by-stander expenses and extra nourishment. 8. We are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned award on any other grounds. 9. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amount as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 1 Loss of earning Rs.4000/- (3000x4=12000 minus 8000) 2 Loss of amenities of life Rs.4,000/-(12000 minus 8000) 3 Bystander’s expenses & Extra nourishment Rs.2550/-(19 x 200 = 3800 minus 1250) Total Rs.10,550/- ============ MACA 299/2006 -6- 10. In the result a)this appeal is allowed in part. b)The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.10,550/-(Rupees ten thousand five hundred and fifty only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c)We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal. d)All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks