IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1501 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1871/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- C.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, R.B.I.STAFF QUARTERS,B-9,NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. S.RAJAMONY,S/O.SUBBYA NADAR, PRAYARAKKAL VILA VEEDU, THALACHANVILA, PARASALA-695502 2. T.HENRY, S/O.M.THOMASA, KANDAKAN VILAI VEEUD, MOOVATTUMUGAM, THIRUVATTAR P.O.,KANJYAKUMAR DISTRICT-600019 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LMS BUILDING PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023 ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1501 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant is the appellant. He, a 42 year old person employed as Canteen Worker by the Reserve Bank of India, claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 6/7/2002. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of second upper incisor and fracture of 5th metacarpal of right hand. He was an inpatient from 7/7/02 to 12/7/02. He claimed that his monthly income was `7,000/-. No materials were produced to indicate the period of enforced unemployment as a result of the accident. The Tribunal, against a total claim limited to `1,25,000/-, awarded an amount of `46,000/- as per the details given in paragraph-16 of the impugned award which we extract below: Sl.No. Head of Claim Amount awarded Basis - vital details in a nutshell 1 Loss of earning 10500 For 1 ½ months (7000 x 1 ½) 2 Transportation to the hospital 500 Reasonable estimate made 3 Damage to clothing 250 Reasonable estimate made M.A.C.A. No.1501 of 2011 -: 2 :- Sl.No. Head of Claim Amount awarded Basis - vital details in a nutshell 4 Extra nourishment 500 Reasonable estimate made 5 Bystander's expenses 500 IP treatment for 5 days 6 Medical and miscellaneous expenses 500 No bills produced. Reasonable estimate made 7 Compensation for pain and suffering 12000 Fracture 2nd right upper incisor and fracture of the 5th metacarpal right hand 8 Compensation for continuing disability 16200 3000 x 12 x 9 x 5% 9 Compensation for loss of amenities 5000 Reasonable estimate made Total 45950 Rounded to Rs.46,000/- Limited to Rs.1,25,000/- With interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition 5/10/2002 till 17/8/2007, the date of dismissal of the OP and from 3/11/2009, the date of restoration till 5/1/2010, the date of dismissal of the OP and from 8/6/2010, the date of restoration till realization. The insurance company was made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Challenge is raised against the quantum of compensation only. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits firstly that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings is not adequate. In the absence of any evidence to show the earnings at the relevant time, the Tribunal chose to accept the assertion of M.A.C.A. No.1501 of 2011 -: 3 :- the appellant in the application fully. Accordingly, `7,000/- was deemed to be his monthly income even though there was no specific evidence about the period of enforced unemployment/ leave taken. The Tribunal assumed that the injuries must have led to involuntary unemployment for a period of 1 ½ months. We find absolutely no reason calling for appellate interference against the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of earning. Even though the learned counsel contends that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is inadequate, we find that an amount of `12,000/- awarded is absolutely reasonable. 4. The Tribunal accepted that the injuries referred to above could have resulted in reduction in earning capacity to the extent of 5%. The Tribunal took note that at present the appellant does not lose any income; but however taking into account the probable reduction in earnings after the appellant retired from the service of the Reserve Bank of India, an amount `16,200/- was awarded as compensation. We find no reason to interfere with the said award also. 5. Finally, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that costs have not been awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant is entitled to proportionate cost in respect of the proceedings M.A.C.A. No.1501 of 2011 -: 4 :- before the Tribunal as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943), it is contended. We accept that contention. 6. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The impugned award is upheld in all other respects; but it is directed that the appellant shall be entitled to cost before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- V. CHITAMBARESH (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge