IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 2056 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.2189/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- P.A.SURENDRAN, AGED 49 YEARS, SON OF AYYANKUTTY, PAPPANAYIL HOUSE, NEAR AYYAMPILLIKKAVU TEMPLE, NADAMA, EROOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. P.G.KUNJANDY, S/O GEORGE, PALLICKAL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, CHELIKUZHY P.O., EZHAMANGALAM, ADOOR. 2. SUGUNAN, S/O RAGHAVAN, OZHUTHARAYIL HOUSE, WEST OF ILLIKKAPADY, EROOR P.O., (VIA)TRIPUNITHURA. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., TRIPUNITHURA. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 2056 of 2007 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Raman, J. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the MACT, Ernakulam in OP (MV) 2189/1999, the claimant has come up in appeal inter alia contending that the compensation awarded is inadequate. 2. The appellant/claimant while travelling in a motor cycle, another motor cycle came from behind in a rash and negligent manner hit against the appellant, causing the injuries. Considering the medical records and other evidences available in the case, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred as a result of the negligent riding of the other motor bike by the second respondent. Insurance is admitted. As against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/- the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,22,000/- under different heads. 3. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the appellant was a contractor in the FACT drawing more than Rs.4,000/- a month. But the Tribunal notionally fixed the income as Rs.2,000/- which is too low. But in the absence of any evidence adduced to prove the income of the appellant MACA No. 2056 of 2007 2 we find the notional income as fixed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. 4. It is then contended that the injured was 41 years of age and he had suffered orthopaedic disability of 13% and ophthalmologic disability of 30% as assessed by a Doctor attached to the Government hospital Ernakulam as evidenced by Ext.X1, but the Tribunal did not give any amount by way of disability compensation. We have considered this submission. The medical certificate Ext.X1 is not proved by examining the Doctor. At least the appellant should have mounted the box to testify the contents of the certificate. The Tribunal gave reason for not allowing any disability compensation. In paragraph 9 of the impugned award, it is stated that even if 10% opthalmologic disability is taken which is only partial in nature, it would not show that disability would have affected the earning power of the injured. But nothing is mentioned about the orthopaedic disability of 13% found acceptable by the Tribunal. 5. We find that, for loss of amenities and discomforts, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded. The injured was hospitalized for 38 days in two different hospitals. Entire medical expense as claimed has been allowed. Only an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards transportation, hospitalization and by-stander’s expense, nourishment etc. We find that the appellant is entitled for a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the hospital expenditure including bystander expenditure. As MACA No. 2056 of 2007 3 noticed earlier, 10% ophthalmologic disability and 13% orthopaedic disability have been accepted by the Tribunal, but in the absence of actual loss of regular income and his loss of earning power, no compensation is awarded. Hence we award a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- under this head. Under all other heads, the injured has been compensated adequately. In the result, the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- which shall carry interest at the rate of 7% on the date of petition till payment. It shall be satisfied by the Insurance Company by depositing the amount as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dnc