IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 2054 of 2005(E) ------------------------ OPMV.1177/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- SAVITHA, D/O.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, MADASSERIPILAVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O. THAYYOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. GOVINDAN NAIR,THIRUVALOOR HOUSE, P.O.PILASSERY, CALICUT. 2. ABDUL HAKKIM, S/O.JAINY, ALUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.PILASSERY, CALICUT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE-2, 2ND FLOOR, SEEMA TOWERS, BANK ROAD, MAVOOR ROAD JUNCTION, CALICUT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN R3 BY ADV. MR.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.2054 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. She, a 19 year old girl at the time of the accident, had suffered personal injuries in a motor accident which took place on 24/11/2000. She was a student of the final year B.Com course at the time of the accident. In addition to the external injuries suffered by her, she suffered fracture of the ulna styloid right, fracture of the middle phtanx of the right middle finger and the fracture of the right talus. She underwent treatment as an in- patient for a period of two days. She allegedly has suffered disability to the extent of 10%. The tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the appellant who claimed 1,08,000/- as compensation, is entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/- as per the details given below: Transportation to hospital Rs.300/- Extra nourishment Rs.500/- Bystander expenses Rs.200/- M.A.C.A.No.2054/05 2 Medical Expenses Rs.1,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.8,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.15,000/- Interest was directed to be paid @ 7% per annum. 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the accident had upset the educational curriculum of the appellant, a student of the final year B.Com at the relevant time. No amounts, whatsoever, has been awarded as compensation under this head, points out the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The counsel further submits that the amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering Rs.8,000/- is unrealistic, considering the fact that three fractures referred above were suffered by the appellant, a young girl aged 19 years at the relevant time. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the award of an amount of Rs.5,000/- only under the head of loss of amenities is also not realistic and reasonable. The nature of injuries suffered and the possible impact that the trauma suffered must have left behind was not reasonably taken M.A.C.A.No.2054/05 3 into account by the tribunal. Under the head loss of amenities, the tribunal must have taken note of the adverse impact that the trauma would have left behind on the physical health of the appellant and the possible adverse impact which it must have left behind on the future prospects of the appellant. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the tribunal had erred grossly in not taking into account the disability which the appellant had allegedly suffered as a result of the accident. He relies on Ext.A11 certificate which shows that the medical officer had assessed her disabilities and had opined that 10% disability has been suffered by her. The tribunal had erred in not accepting the certificate, contends the counsel. 4. We do take note of the serious injuries suffered by the appellant. Though she was an in-patient only for two days, it would be artificial to assume that she would not have lost a number of days in connection with the treatment. This would certainly have an impact on the educational curriculum of the appellant. We are satisfied that some amount must have certainly been awarded. An amount of Rs.5,000/- under this head shall be reasonable, we are satisfied. M.A.C.A.No.2054/05 4 5. Three fractures have been suffered. Injury must be reckoned to be serious and grievous notwithstanding the fact that hospitalisation was for a period of 2 days only. We are satisfied that under the head pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.12,500/- can safely be awarded. 6. There is no convincing materials to show that any reduction in earning capacity is likely to result. However, we take note of Ext.A11 certificate which shows that some disability has been suffered by the appellant. Though we are not satisfied that the multiplier-multiplicand method must be pressed into service, we note that even if the entire assertions were accepted for disability of 5%, reckoning notional income at Rs.1,250/-, the appellant would be entitled to an amount of Rs.12,000/- (Rs.1,250/- x 12 x 16 x 5/100) as compensation under that head. We take note of this circumstance while ascertaining the quantum of compensation payable for loss of amenities. We are satisfied that award of a total amount of Rs.15,000/- under this head shall be eminently reasonable for the alleged physical disability suffered. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.19,500/- (Rupees M.A.C.A.No.2054/05 5 nineteen thousand and five hundred only) in addition to the amounts already awarded by the tribunal. 1. Pain and suffering Rs.4,500/- more (Rs.12,500/- minus Rs.8,000/-) 2. Retardation in the educational Rs.5,000/- career (no amount awarded) 3. Loss of amenities consequent Rs.10,000/- more ((Rs.15,000/- minus Rs.5,000/-) Total Rs.19,500/- 8. Interest shall be payable on the entire amount at the rate directed by the tribunal from the date of the petition. 9. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.2054/05 6 M.A.C.A.No.2054/05 7 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009