IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 297 of 2004(C) ---------------------- OPMV.463/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/APPLICANT --------------------------------- BIJU KUMAR, S/O. KUTTAPPAN NAIR, KRISHNAN VILASOM, CHENNIYODU, UTTCHAKADA KARODU, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. P.BALACHANDRAN THAMPI, THIRUMANGALATHU VEEDU, KULATHOOR, UTTCHAKADA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SPENCER JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON 16/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. NO: 297 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th Day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Joseph Francis J. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in OP MV 463/01 on the file of MACT Neyyattinkara. Respondents 1 and 2 are the respondents 1 and 2 in that OP which was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The allegation is that on 5.12.00 the petitioner was traveling in a motor Cycle bearing No.KL 01 T 4637 as a pillion rider through the Utchakkada - Poovar road. The motor cycle was ridden by one Shaji. When they reached near Thiraviyam hospital at Uchakkara, an ambassador car bearing No; KLV-5599 owned and driven by 1st respondent came from opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent who was driving the ambassador car. Second respondent was the insurer of the car. The petitioner claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. In the Claims Tribunal the first respondent M.A.C.A. NO: 297 OF 2004 : 2 : remained exparte. Second respondent filed written statement admitting the policy of the car and contends that the accident was not due to the negligence of first respondent and compensation claimed is excessive. 2. In Claims Tribunal PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A21 were marked. The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidences allowed the petition and the petitioner was allowed to get compensation of Rs.1,51,890/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per month from the date of petition till the date of realisation from first and second respondent. Second respondent is directed to pay the compensation. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the petitioner filed this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the second respondent. 4. The Medical records would show that due to the accident the appellant sustained following injuries: “lacerted wound 2 x 3 (L) frontal region, fractures of facial bone, antero lateral posterior wall nasal bones on (L) maxillary sinus, nasal septum, ethmoic air cells, lateral to medial walls (L) orbit, medial walls of (R) orbit, walls of frontal sinus with depression to (L) M.A.C.A. NO: 297 OF 2004 : 3 : zygomatic, arch, fracture on the (L) maxilla, fracture on the (L) zygoma, (R) globe is smaller in size with hazy hyperdense vitreous, loss of vision on ( R ) eye due to retinal detachment. The petitioner was treated as inpatient in the Medical college hospital, Thiruvananthapuram from 5.12.2000 to 14.12.2000, from 8.10.2001 to 20.10.2001 in the Jewhar hospital, Madurai from 9.12.2001 to 22.12.2001 and from 28.8.2002 to 2.9.2002 in the Aravind Eye hospital, Madhurai.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident occurred on 5.12.2000 and the appellant underwent treatment from that day onwards and the appellant produced Ext.A11 to Ext.A17 series of medical bills for Rs.77,968/- But the Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs.28,000/- towards medical expenses stating that the other bills are prior to 9.12.01. The appellant produced Ext.A11 series medical bills for Rs.10,130/- Ext.A12 series of medical bills for Rs.1,328/- Ext.A13 series of medical bills for Rs.3,114/-, Ext.A14 series of medical bills for Rs.6,909/-, Ext.A15 series of medical bills for Rs.29,300/- Ext.A16 medical bills for Rs.6,296/- and Ext.A17 series of medical bills for Rs.6,689/-. Thus in total the appellant produced medical bills for Rs.63,766/- As the appellant underwent treatment from M.A.C.A. NO: 297 OF 2004 : 4 : 15.12.2000 onwards, there is no justification for rejecting the medical bills prior to 9.12.01. Therefore we are of the view that the appellant should be allowed to get Rs.35,766/- more towards medical expenses. 6. Ext.A19 is the salary certificate issued from the Postmaster Neyyattinkara dated 30.1.2003 in which it is stated that the salary of the appellant, who is working as Postal Assistant is Rs.7,297/-. But the appellant had not produce any salary certificate to show that the monthly salary of the appellant on the date of accident. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal fixed the monthly salary on date of the accident as Rs.5,000/- Ext.A20 is the leave certificate showing that due to the accident the appellant availed earned leave for 106 days, half pay leave for 110 days and commuted leave for 4 days. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.27,390/- towards compensation for loss of earning. The appellant has not produced any document showing that the loss of earning is more than the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore the appellant is not entitled to get any more amount towards loss of earning. M.A.C.A. NO: 297 OF 2004 : 5 : 7. Ext.A9, Disability certificate shows that “Due to retinal detachment with loss of vision in ( R) eye, the petitioner has 40% permanent partial disability. In the accident, the petitioner sustained depression fracture of (L) fronto asal complex and zygomatic arch including lateral wall of orbit, superior orbital margin and frontal bone, depression fracture of nasal bone and loss of vision on (R) eye due to retinal detachment.” 8. PW1 admits that even now he is attending his job and getting salary and that he will retire at the age of 60 years. The age of the appellant at the time of the accident was 30 years. The Claims Tribunal found that permanent partial disability affected the earning power of the appellant only after his retirement and the Claims Tribunal assessed at Rs.2,000/- as monthly income after retirement and applying 5 as the multiplier, awarded a sum of Rs.48,000/- as compensation for loss of earning power. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that it is only just and reasonable to fix the monthly income after retirement as Rs.2,500/-. Calculating on that basis, the appellant is entitled to Rs.12,000/- more towards loss of earning M.A.C.A. NO: 297 OF 2004 : 6 : power. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities in life and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering, which are according to us very reasonable. Therefore the appellant is entitled to get Rs.47,766/- more as compensation. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is allowed to realise Rs.47,766/- more together with interest at the rate of 7.5% interest per month from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the second respondent. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. dl/