IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 841 of 2011(A) ---------------------- (O.P(M.V) NO.2256/2001 OF PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE) APPELLANT : PETITIONER ------------------------ T.M.PRABHAKARAN,AGED 44 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNAKURUP,RESIDING AT THEKKANNAMCHERY MADATHIL, `SUTHALAM', P.O.PERINGALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. M.P.SURESH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VATTAKANDY HOUSE, HOUSE NO.28/183,P.O.NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WHITE LINES BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** C.M.Appl.No.1331 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No.841 of 2011-A ***************************** Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. C.M.Appl.No.1331 of 2011 is to condone the delay of 480 days in filing an M.A.C.A. The M.A.C.A in turn is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded for personal injuries suffered by the claimant/appellant. As against the total claim of Rs.2 lakhs only an amount of Rs.22,300/- was awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded the amount under the following heads: i) Loss of earning : Rs. 4,000.00 ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.11,000.00 iii) Loss of amenities : Rs. 4,000.00 iv) Medical and miscellaneous expenses : Rs. 3,000.00 v) Bystander's expenses : Rs. 300.00 ------------------- Total : Rs.22,300.00 ======== C.M.Appl.No.1331 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No.841 of 2011-A 2 2. The appellant had suffered fracture of the left clavicle and fracture of the mastoid process. He was an inpatient for a total period of 4 days. He claims to be an officer in Government service earning an income of Rs.6,500/-. No documents were produced to show the employment, the income or the period of leave of the appellant/claimant. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, proceeded to award the amount of Rs.22,300/- as shown above. 3. We are not satisfied that the long delay of 480 days deserves condonation. However, in our anxiety to ensure that the rejection of the prayer for condonation does not result in miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned counsel for the appellant to explain the nature of challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in detail. The counsel submits that amount awarded under the head of loss of earning – Rs.4,000/- is not justified. He was an inpatient for a period of 4 days. Even assuming that the appellant was unable to pursue his normal avocation for a period of 15 days and even accepting his assertion that his monthly income is Rs.6,500/-, the amount awarded – Rs.4,000/-, is found to be perfectly justified. C.M.Appl.No.1331 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No.841 of 2011-A 3 4. For pain and suffering and loss of amenities, a total amount of Rs.15,000/- is seen awarded. Considering the nature of the injuries – including fracture, the period of hospitalisation, nature of treatment etc., we are satisfied that the said amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the composite head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities is absolutely reasonable and correct. For bystander's expenses, an amount of Rs.300/- was awarded. Considering the period of hospitalisation, the same does not also warrant any interference. 5. An amount of Rs.3,000/- was awarded under the composite head of transport to hospital and extra nourishment. We do not find any reason to interfere with the amount under that head also. It is significant that no documents to prove the nature of employment, quantum of monthly income and the period of involuntary non employment consequent to the suffering of the injury were produced before the Tribunal. 6. Interest has been awarded @ 6% per annum. At any rate, we do not think that the award warrants appellate interference on that sole reason. 7. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in C.M.Appl.No.1331 of 2011 & M.A.C.A No.841 of 2011-A 4 any miscarriage of justice as we are satisfied that just and reasonable compensation has already been awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The petition for condonation of delay is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Consequently the appeal shall stand dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/