IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1554 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1577/2010 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER -------------- N.K.KUNHALIKUTTY, AGED 32 YEARS, SON OF MAMMU, NELLIKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, P.O.VANIMEL, VIA KALLACHI, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. P.THYAGARAJAN, SON OF PERIYANNAN, NELLIKUARI HOUSE, KALLUNGUDI, P.O.SAMBAJ, SULLIA TALUK, PUTTUR, KARNATAKA-574 201. 2. BABU.S.A, SON OF SASI, ARAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.VELLAMUNDA, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANADU. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 74-A, PARAMATHY ROAD, NAMAKKAL, TAMILNADU – 637 001. ADVOCATE SRI.M.A.GEORGE, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1554 of 2011-B ***************************** Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He, a person, aged 31 years, claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 28.02.2010. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of upper one third of the humerus. He was treated as an outpatient. He is employed abroad. It is his case that he was in India on paid holidays and it is during such period that the accident was suffered by him. Against a total claim of Rs.3 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.27,500/- as compensation as per the details given in para.18, which we extract below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Transport to hospital Rs. 1,000.00 2 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000.00 3 Loss of earning Rs. 6,000.00(3000 X 2months) 4 Damage to clothing Rs. 500.00 5 Treatment expenses Rs. 1,000.00 (no bills produced) 6 Pain and sufferings Rs.15,000.00 7 Loss of amenities to life Rs. 3,000.00 M.A.C.A No.1554 of 2011 2 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded Total Rs.27,500.00 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal having correctly come to a conclusion that the appellant must have been involuntarily unemployed for a period of 2 months erred in awarding only Rs.6,000/- as compensation for loss of earnings. The appellant was employed abroad and reckoning only Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income is incorrect, contends the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that for loss of amenities only a further amount of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded. This is grossly inadequate, contends the learned counsel. The learned counsel further points out that for pain and suffering, only an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded. That also is said to be inadequate. 3. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We accept the case of the appellant. The appellant was at his native place on leave (paid holiday) from his place of employment M.A.C.A No.1554 of 2011 3 abroad. It is during such period of paid holidays - which as per the contract of employment extends to a period of one month, that he suffered injuries. There is nothing in evidence to show that he was unable to return after his period of leave within the period of one month of paid leave. Even then, we find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that at least reasonable amount should have been awarded for the loss of amenities. Only a total amount of Rs.9,000/- (Rs.6,000/- for loss of earnings and Rs.3,000/- for loss of amenities) has been awarded in addition to the compensation for pain and suffering. We are satisfied that realistically the trauma suffered and the consequent inconvenience during the period of treatment which fell evidently within the period of paid leave of the appellant, can be taken into account and reasonable amount can be awarded as compensation. 4. For pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded. We note that fracture of the humerus had resulted. Though he was not treated as an inpatient compensation for major fracture suffered can be reasonably enhanced, we are satisfied. 5. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the M.A.C.A No.1554 of 2011 4 appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.11,000/- as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal as per the details shown below: i) Loss of amenities to life : Rs.6,000.00 (15,000 minus 9,000) ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.5,000.00 (20,000 minus 15,000) ------------------ Rs.11,000.00 ======== 6. We are satisfied that the amount awarded under the other heads does not warrant appellate interference. Proportionate cost as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011 (3) KLT 943] has not been granted. We are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to such cost. 7. In the result: a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period M.A.C.A No.1554 of 2011 5 as directed by the Tribunal; d) Proportionate cost in the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be awarded on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943]; e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/