IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1365 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.971/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OPMV. ------------------------------------------- P.M.ABDUL JABBAR,S/O.AYAMMED, POOVAMMALA HOUSE, CHAMAL POST, THAMARASSERY VIA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN SMT.P.Y.SHEHEERA RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) --------------- 1. AHAMMED BASHEER PANDIKASALA, S/O.IMBACHALI KUTTIYOTT HOUSE, VASZHAKKAD POST, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 2. BIJU.C, S/O.CHATHAN, AMBAYATHODU MALAYIL HOUSE, THAMARASSERY POST, KOZHIKODE 673 015. 3. THE UNITED INDIA ISURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISIONLA OFFICE, WHITE LINES BUILDINGS, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001. ADV. SMT.R.REMA FOR R3 S.C SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKKAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 15/09/2007. He had suffered serious injuries. There was rupture of descending aorta at isthmus with haematoma. There was fracture of T9 vertebra and fracture of the 5th rib left. There was haemothorax. He was an in-patient from 15/09/2007 to 27/09/2007 (12 days). Surgery had to be conducted on 15/09/2007. Against a total claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,83,186/- as per the details given in paragraph 10 of the impugned award which we extract below: Sl.No Head of claim Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount awarded (Rs.) Details 1. Transport 4,000/- 750/- -- 2. Extra nourishment 3,000/- 1,000/- --- 3. Loss of earnings 50,000/- 6,000/- 3,000 x 2 months 4. Bystander's expenses Nil 1,200/- 100x 12 days 5 Treatment expenses 2,20,000/- 1,59,236/- 1,63,217- 3981 6 Pain and suffering 30,000/- 12,000/- -- M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 2 Sl.No Head of claim Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount awarded (Rs.) Details 7 Loss of amenities 20,000/- 3,000/- -- Total 3,00,000/- 1,83,186/- 7% interest from 25/08/2008 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The impugned award is assailed on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. Only an amount of Rs.1,83,186/- has been awarded as compensation. The tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,59,236/- towards medical expenses only. The balance amount awarded is not at all adequate or sufficient compensation for the loss suffered by the claimant, submits learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that for loss of earnings, only an amount of Rs.6,000/- has been awarded. No better evidence is produced to prove the income of the appellant. The tribunal, in these circumstances, drew the presumption of prudence that Rs.3,000/- can, at any rate, be reckoned as the monthly income. We take note of the injuries. We take note of the period of hospitalisation. We take note of the surgical procedure M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 3 undergone. We are satisfied that it can safely be held that there must have been involuntary unemployment for a period of four months as a result of the injury and treatment. 4. For extra nourishment, only an amount of Rs.1,000/- has been awarded. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment as in-patient initially and later as out-patient, we are satisfied that a total amount of Rs.2,500/- can be awarded as compensation under the head of extra nourishment. For treatment expenses, an amount of Rs.1,59,236/- has been awarded and that amount is borne out by records. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tribunal did not take into account the inevitable other expenses that must have resulted. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.1,65,000/- can be awarded under the head of treatment expenses. 5. Under the head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities, only a total amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded (Rs.12,000/- + Rs.3,000/-). The learned counsel for the appellant contends that considering the nature of injuries, the period of treatment and the nature of surgical procedures undergone, the compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities is too inadequate. We agree with the learned counsel for the M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 4 appellant. We are satisfied, considering the nature of injuries suffered to the aorta and the nature of surgical procedures undergone, we would be justified in awarding a total amount of Rs.25,000/- under the composite head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities. No physical disability is proved to have resulted. 6. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves or warrants interference. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.23,264/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. i) Loss of earnings Rs.6,000/- [Rs.12,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 4) minus Rs.6,000/-] ii) Extra nourishment Rs.1,500/- (Rs.2,500/- minus Rs.1,000/-) iii) Treatment expenses Rs.5,764/- [Rs.1,65,000/- minus Rs.1,59,236/-) iv) pain and suffering and loss Rs.10,000/- of amenities (Rs.25,000/- minus Rs.15,000/-) --------------- Total Rs.23,264/- ======= 7. Only an amount of Rs.1,500/- has been awarded as M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 5 costs. The learned counsel for the appellant contends and we agree that proportionate costs for the proceedings before the tribunal on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943] is liable to be awarded. 8. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) Appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.23,264/- (Rupees twenty three thousand two hundred and sixty four only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the tribunal. d) Proportionate costs before the tribunal shall be paid as per the decision in Jeena (Supra). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 6 M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 7 M.A.C.A.No.1365 of 2011 8 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010