IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1517 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.2588/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN M.V.O.P. ------------------------------------------------- KUNJAKKAN, S/O.KORANCHIRI, CHENANGATHU HOUSE, P.O.ARATTUPUZHA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN M.V.O.P. ------------------------------------ 1. RATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.RAGHUNATH, PADMASREE MADATHIL KOMATHU HOUSE, P.O.KANIMANGALAM. 2. P.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED, POTTANIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KODINHI, VIA-THIRUNANGADI. 3. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE, COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, ALENGADAN BUILDINGS, TANA, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.1517 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 11th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV) No.2588/2000, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.21,335/-. The petitioner was a Sub Inspector of Police, having a monthly salary of Rs.8,287/- at the time of the accident. It is also evident that he was on leave for 59 days. Though there was no actual loss of earning at that point of time, it is a settled principle that in these type of cases, when a future occasion arises, the claimant would have been forced to avail some other leave, which would have resulted in loss of income to him. In such cases, the courts have taken the view that adequate compensation has to be awarded. In this case, there is almost two months' leave. Only Rs.4,000/- is given for loss of earning for two months. It is incorrect. It is true, while surrendering leave, one may not be entitled to get all the perks, just like compensatory allowance, house rent allowance etc. Therefore, MACA NO.1517/05 2 fixing it at Rs.6,000/- per month for two months would enable the claimant to get an additional compensation of Rs.8,000/-. 2. Learned counsel would further contend that nothing has been awarded towards damage to clothing etc. I feel some amount can be granted under that head, especially being a Sub Inspector of Police, who has sustained injury on various parts of the body. I award a sum of Rs.500/- under that head. Though the learned counsel would contend that medical expenses had been granted only for the bills, I am not in a position to grant more, in the absence of better evidence. 3. There is a contention that disability compensation should have been awarded for the loss of hearing. The said contention cannot be entertained for the reason that there is nothing to establish that the loss of hearing was on account of the injury sustained in the accident. On all other heads, the Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.8,500/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of the petition till realisation and the respondent Insurance Company is MACA NO.1517/05 3 directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. tgs M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1517 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 11th June, 2008.