IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 641 of 2011() ---------------------- OPMV.1578/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- K.A.LAZAR, AGED 62, S/O.ANTONY, KURUSINGAL HOUSE, KEEZHUMAD DESOM, ALUVA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN SRI.L.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THULASIDAS @ SANTHOSH, AGED 27, S/O.GOPI, NJATTUTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, NEAR TO L.P.SCHOOL, VELIYANAD P.O., EDACKATTUVAYAL VILLAGE. 2. LEELA KUNJU KUNJU, W/O.KUNJU KUNJU, VALIYAPADAM HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA - 6. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 2ND FLOOR, DAMODAR CHAMBER, STATUE JUNCTION, THRIPUNITHURA P.O., PIN - 682301. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.641 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant is the appellant. He, a 57 year old employee of Aluva Municipality (Anti Mosquito Worker), claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 17/1/06. He had suffered multiple injuries. He was treated as an inpatient for a period of 37 days in the Co-operative Medical College, Kochi. He had to continue treatment as outpatient thereafter. Against a total claim of `2,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of `65,113/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph-13 of the impugned award which we extract below: Head of claim Amount awarded (in Rs.) Transportation expenses 500 Damage to clothing & articles 500 Extra-nourishment 500 Treatment expenses 11113 M.A.C.A. No.641 of 2011 -: 2 :- Head of claim Amount awarded (in Rs.) Attendant expenses 7000 Loss of earnings 10500 Compensation for pain and sufferings 20000 Compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life 15000 Total 65113 2. The insurer was made entirely liable under the impugned award. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Challenge is raised against the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was involuntarily unemployed for a period of 3 months. Documents showing the leave availed were produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted that the appellant was involuntarily unemployed for a period of 3 months. But, however, the Tribunal did not accept and act upon Ext.A11 pay slip produced by the appellant. The pay slip shows that the appellant was drawing a monthly income of `9,301/-. For the short reason that the said certificate was not signed by the Secretary of the Aluva Municipality, the Tribunal did not accept and act upon the same. We find no dispute and the Tribunal had also accepted that the M.A.C.A. No.641 of 2011 -: 3 :- claimant/appellant was employed as Anti Mosquito Worker in Aluva Municipality. His claim was that he was getting an income of `7,000/-. Ext.A11 related to a period long after the date of the accident. Ext.A11 is for January, 2008. It is evidently taking note of this also that the Tribunal did not accept and act upon Ext.A8 to ascertain the loss of earning for the period from 18/1/06 to 31/3/06. The appellant has no reason to advance as to why the relevant documents are not produced. We are, in these circumstances, persuaded to agree that the Tribunal has committed no error in not choosing to accept and act upon Ext.A11. What the actual income during the relevant period is, we have absolutely no material. The Tribunal drew the presumption of prudence that the income can be fixed at `3,500/- per mensem. The appellant, who was in a position to produce clinching, cogent and authentic documents to help the court, has only to blame himself for not making better evidence available before the Tribunal. 4. There is a challenge raised against the impugned award under the head of transportation expenses and extra- nourishment. We do note that the period of inpatient was only 37 days. Bystander's expense has been awarded at `7,000/-. We are not, in these circumstances, persuaded to accept the M.A.C.A. No.641 of 2011 -: 4 :- challenge raised against the amount awarded under any other head. 5. We are not, in these circumstances, persuaded to agree that there is any defect or inadequacy in the award passed by the Tribunal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge M.A.C.A. No.641 of 2011 -: 5 :- R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- C.M. Appl. No.1052 of 2011 in M.A.C.A. No.641 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 ORDER This petition is to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the M.A.C.A. Heard. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. R. BASANT (Judge) K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ M.A.C.A. No.641 of 2011 -: 6 :-