IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 414 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.849/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- MOHANDAS, S/O.MAMMU, KALIKANDAN HOUSE, SRINIDHI, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. K.D.ROY, S/O.DEVASSY KUTTY, KURUTHY HOUSE, PERAMBRA, THRISSUR. 2. LEKSHMI DEVI, XXVI, THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, KUNNAMKULAM. R1 AND R2 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER ON I.A. 1962/2009 DATED 17.7.2009 ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009, ALONG WITH MACA 415/2003 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. Nos. 414 & 415 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. Claimant in OP (MV) Nos. 728 of 1996 and 849 of 1996 before the Motor Accidents Clims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, is the appellant in these appeals. O.P.(MV) No. 728 of 1996 is filed seeking compensation on account of personal injuries sustained by the appellant whereas O.P.(MV) No. 849 of 1996 is filed seeking compensation on account of damage sustained to his car. The accident occurred when a van collided with the car of the appellant, which he was driving. 2. Dealing with the claim for damage sustained to the car, the Tribunal found that the appellant had already claimed compensation from his own insurer and an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- was allowed. According to the appellant, the car was insured for an amount of Rs. 4,49,000/- and it was a case of total damage. However, no documentary evidence apart from the "ipse dixit" of the appellant is 2 produced to show the extent of damage sustained to the car. No evidence like any survey report, bill for purchase of spare parts, bill for payment of labour charges, photographs of the damaged vehicle, etc., were produced. Hence we find no reason to interfere with dismissal of the claim. 3. With respect to compensation on account of injuries sustained to the appellant, it is noticed that he had sustained fracture of right patella with haemarthrosis right knee. The appellant underwent surgery in which patella was removed. Besides he sustained injury to right pinna and repair was done by ENT surgeon. As per Ext. A3 disability certificate issued by PW2, it is noted that the injuries sustained to the appellant had resulted in persistent disability which is assessed at 10 per cent. The appellant is a businessman who is the Managing Director of company at Abu Dubai as well as the Managing Partner of West Fort Hospital, Trichur and Chairman of Arogya Scan Research Private Ltd. He is an income-tax payee. The learned Tribunal found that since the appellant was only one among the other partners of all the concerns, there is no clear evidence to show that those firms had sustained any loss with respect to the income derived out of it's business. Eventhough the appellant continued prolonged 3 treatment no document was produced to show that the absence of the appellant had in any way affected the business activities of these firms. So also there is no evidence to show that permanent disability caused to the appellant had in any way affected his income and earnings during the year succeeding to the accident. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal adopted a notional income at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month for the purpose of computing his loss of earnings. Considering four months' loss of earning, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted under that head. So also in awarding compensation for continuing permanent disability, the Tribunal took notional income of the appellant as Rs. 1500/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 11,700/- under that head. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the amounts awarded under the above said heads are highly unrealistic and too inadequate. Hence he seeks enhancement of the compensation. 4. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record we feel that there is no proper documentary evidence adduced by the appellant to prove the actual loss of earning during the period when he underwent treatment and also to prove the loss of earning which might have occurred due to his permanent disability. However, we feel that various amounts granted by the 4 Tribunal under these heads are on the lower side. Considering various other amounts awarded under different heads, we feel that the total compensation of Rs. 65,000/- granted by the Tribunal is inadequate. On an anxious consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, we feel that enhancement of total compensation by an additional sum of Rs. 35,000/- will be just and reasonable to meet the ends of justice. In the result, MACA 414/2003 is dismissed. M.A.C.A.No. 415 of 2003 is partly allowed enhancing the total compensation of Rs. 65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs. 35,000/- which will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till payment. The third respondent insurance company is directed to make payment of the amount within three months. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C. K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk 5