IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1200 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.632/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- P.V.DIVAKARAN, S/O.P.R.VASUDEVAN, AGED 27 YEARS, PUTHENNUR HOUSE, CHETHALAYAM POST, S.BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- 1. RAMESH.K.A., LORRY DRIVER, C/O.S.SHIVAKUMAR, S/O.SJHIVANNA, 41 VTH CROSS, 1 STAGE GOKULAM, MYSORE. (DRIVER OF MINI LORRY NO.KA09/4753). 2. S.SHIVAKUMAR, S/O.SJHIVANNA,41 VTH CROSS 1 STAGE GOKULAM, MYSORE. (OWNER OF MINI LORRY KA 09/4573) 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1216/1, KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, K.M.PURAM, MYSORE 670 MYSORE 670004. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1200 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 18/5/1998. He was aged 27 years on the date of the accident. He claimed to be a teacher earning a monthly income of Rs.3,240/-. There is nothing to show that he was hospitalised. He had suffered fracture to a tooth on the upper jaw and crack to another tooth. There was loosening of one more tooth. Against a claim for Rs.1,56,400/-, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,350/- as per the details given below: Sl.No. Head Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount awarded (Rs.) 1. Loss of earning 18.05.1998 to 18.03.1999 32,400 ---- 2. Transport to hospital 2,000 800 3. Extra nourishment 1,500 500 4. Damage to clothing 500 250 5. Medical expenses 25,000 300 6. Loosening of tooth ---- 500 M.A.C.A.No.1200 of 2008 2 Sl.No. Head Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount awarded (Rs.) 7. Pain and suffering 15,000 3,000 8. Bystanders expenses 5,000 ----- 9. Shortened expectation of life 25,000 ------ 10. Compensation for continuing or permanent disability 25,000 ------ 11. Compensation for loss of earning power 25,000 ------ Total 1,56,400 5,350 The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The insurance company/3rd respondent has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. The challenge is raised only on the plank of inadequacy of quantum of compensation. 3. Called upon to explain, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the tribunal did not award any amount for loss of earnings. He was not an in-patient. There is no specific evidence produced to show that he was involuntarily unemployed for any period of time. We assume that there must have been some interruption in his pursuit of normal avocations. We are satisfied, half a month's salary can be awarded as M.A.C.A.No.1200 of 2008 3 compensation under that head. We assume Rs.3,000/- to be his monthly income. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is too inadequate. An amount of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded. We have already referred to the nature of injuries earlier. We agree that the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. 5. We are not persuaded to agree that the amount of compensation awarded under any other head deserves or warrants interference. 6. The tribunal had awarded interest only at the rate of 6% per annum with proportionate cost. We agree with the learned counsel that interest awarded is inadequate and low. We are satisfied that interest can be awarded at the rate of 7.5% per annum. We further clarify that proportionate cost awarded by the tribunal shall be recalculated as per the decision in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943]. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.3,500/- in M.A.C.A.No.1200 of 2008 4 addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. i. Loss of earnings (15 days) Rs.1,500/- ii. pain and suffering Rs.2,000/- (Rs.5,000/- minus Rs.3,000/-) ---------------- Total Rs.3,500/- ====== 8. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of payment/realisation. d) Proportionate cost shall be paid as per the decision in Jeena (Supra). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1200 of 2008 5 M.A.C.A.No.1200 of 2008 6 M.A.C.A.No.1200 of 2008 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010