IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 827 of 2008() ------------------------------- OPMV.1314/2000 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- SMT.BABY SUBRAMANIAN, W/O.SUBRAMANIAN, KANIYAVELITHUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.JANARDHANAN SRI.MANURAJ. K.J RESPONDENT: ---------------------- 1. GEORGE MATHEW, MANAGING PARTNER, ANCHERIL AGENCIES, KOCHI-3. 2. MR.ANTONY, S/O.SAIMON, PALLIYATH VEETTIL, NEAR SOUDI SCHOOL, BEACH ROAD, FORTKOCHI. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH, KOCHI. 4. THE SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM AUTORICKSHAW THOZHILALI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO. 324, COCHIN-18. 5. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., ERNAKULAM. ADVS. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR FOR R5 SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R5 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.827 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT R. BASANT,J. The claimant is the appellant. She claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by her in a motor accident, which took place on 26.03.2000. Against a claim of Rs.1,72,000/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.41,310/- as per the details given in paragraph 9 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Head Amount awarded Medical expenses(supported by bills) Rs.16,310.00 Transportation of damage to clothes Rs. 1,000.00 Attendant expenses and extra nourishment Rs. 2,000.00 Shock, pain and sufferings Rs.15,000.00 Loss of earning Rs. 4,000.00 Loss of amenities and convenience Rs. 3,000.00 Total Rs.41,310.00 =========== M.A.C.A. No.827 of 2008 2 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the third respondent, who alone has been made liable under the impugned award to satisfy the decree. The challenge is raised only on the ground of inadequacy of compensation awarded. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant raises two grounds. First of all it is contended that the total amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities is only Rs.18,000/-(15000+3000) and that the amount so awarded is inadequate, considering the nature of injuries. Secondly, it is contended that for loss of earnings only an amount of Rs.4,000/- has been awarded. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, the appellant must have been involuntarily unemployed for a period far exceeding two months. The Tribunal has reckoned only two months as the period during which the appellant was involuntarily unemployed. It is further contended that only an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been reckoned as the monthly earnings of the appellant. According to the appellant M.A.C.A. No.827 of 2008 3 her monthly income was Rs.3,000/-. The learned counsel submits that the assumption made of notional income by the Tribunal is too low. The counsel points out that following dictum laid down in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar and others (AIR 2001 SC 3218) even a non-earning home maker/housewife is deemed to earn an income of Rs.3000/- per mensem. Hence, the amount awarded under the head of loss of earnings deserves to be enhanced. We now look into the nature of injuries. The injuries suffered include fracture of the 4th rib (right), Compound fracture right supra orbital margin, Fracture of zygomatico maxiliary complex and fracture of pubic ramii on the right side. She was an inpatient only for 8 days. There is nothing to show that she had suffered any permanent disability. It is easy to assume in the nature of the injuries suffered that the appellant must have continued treatment for a long further period of time even after discharge from the hospital. We are further satisfied that Rs.3,000/- can be reckoned as the monthly income and four months can be reckoned as the period of involuntarily unemployment. Considering the nature of the injuries, we are satisfied that a total amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded under M.A.C.A. No.827 of 2008 4 the composite head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities during the period of treatment and recovery. 4. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the following further amounts in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 1. Loss of earnings : Rs.8,000.00 (3000X4 months= 12,000-4000) 2. Pain and suffering and loss of amenities during the period of treatment : Rs.2,000.00 (20000-18000) --------------------------- Total Rs.10,000.00 ========== 5. We are not satisfied that the amounts awarded under any other head deserves interference. 6. In the result: a. The appeal is allowed in part. b. The appellant is found entitled to a total further amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A. No.827 of 2008 5 c. We make it clear 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 ln