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. 598 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.542/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT/THIRD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., P.O.BOX NO.6, M.M.JUNCTION, KOLENCHERI POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: ------------------------ RAJESH, S/O. SIVAN, THEKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE PALLADEM KUNNU, CHULLIYODU POST, CHULLIYODE, NENMENI AMSOM AND DESOM, BATHERY TALUK. ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.598 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Insurance company is the appellant. Claimant claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 05/12/1998. The claimant claimed to be a business man aged 21 years earning a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of the right clavicle. Against a claim of Rs.1,65,000/-, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.40,220/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 8 which we extract below: Head Amount in Rs. Loss of earning 720/- Transport charge 1,500/- Extra nourishment 1,500/- Damage to clothing 500/- Medical expenses 4,000/- Pain and suffering 15,000/- Injury 15,000/- Loss of amenities 2,000/- Total 40,220/- M.A.C.A.No.598 of 2006 2 2. Insurance company claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the amount awarded under every head is excessive. The claimant was an in-patient only for a period from 05/12/1998 to 12/12/1998. Fracture of the clavicle is the main injury suffered. The tribunal was not, at any rate, justified in awarding Rs.4,000/- as medical expenses even in the absence of specific proof. The amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head “injury” in addition to the amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded under the head of loss of amenities when there is no proof of any permanent disability, is not justified, contends the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the insurance company was constrained to prefer this appeal as this tribunal was going on awarding amounts without any basis under the head of “injury”. 3. The award was passed as early as in 2005. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in any view of the matter, the total amount of Rs.40,220/- awarded by the M.A.C.A.No.598 of 2006 3 tribunal cannot be reckoned as unreasonable or unjust. The tribunal erred grossly in reckoning monthly income as Rs.1,800/- only. Considering the nature of the injury (including fracture of the clavicle), the total amount of compensation for loss of earnings Rs.720/- is unrealistic. 4. The learned counsel for the claimant further points out that no amount is awarded under the head of bystander's expenses even though the claimant was an in-patient for some period of time. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that though the award of an amount of Rs.15,000/- separately under the head of injury may not be strictly justified, the award of a total amount of Rs.17,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.2,000/-) under the composite head of injury and loss of amenities is absolutely justified. In any view of the matter, this is not a fit case where the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the M.V.Act can and need be invoked. The learned counsel for the claimant, to drive home his submission that total compensation is fair and just, further points out that interest has been awarded only at the rate of 6% per annum. M.A.C.A.No.598 of 2006 4 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The short question that we have to consider is whether in the light of the facts and circumstances narrated above, appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the M.V.Act can or ought to be invoked. We are satisfied that such jurisdiction need not be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. This is not to say that we approve the course adopted by the tribunal of awarding any compensation under the head of “injury” even after awarding amount under the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Such a head - merely of injury, does not appear to be justified under law. At any rate, since the total amount of Rs.17,000/- awarded under the head of injury and loss of amenities does not appear to us to be unjustified, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not invoking our appellate jurisdiction. 6. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.598 of 2006 5 M.A.C.A.No.598 of 2006 6 M.A.C.A.No.598 of 2006 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010