IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 1794 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.1245/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ---------------------------- MUHAMMED KOYA THANGAL, S/O.ABDULLA KOYA THANGAL, KANANCHERI HOUSE, MARUTHAN CHERI AMSOM, CHEMBRASSERI EAST P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. SAYYID SHIHAB HUSSAIN, S/O.MUHAMMED KOYA THANGAL, KANNANCHERI HOUSE, CHEMBRASSERI EAST P.O., THUVVUR. 2. K.MUHAMMED ABDUREHIMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED KOYA THANGAL, KANNANCHERI HOUSE, CHEMBRASSERI EAST P.O. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSIRANCE CO.LTD., VARIKODEN BUILDING, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI. ADV. SMT.M.T.SHEEBA FOR R2 SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- C.M.Application No.2057 OF 2009 & M.A.C.A.No.1794 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 O R D E R/J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 468 days in filing an appeal. The appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation as also the exoneration of the Insurance Company from liability. Admittedly, it is a comprehensive package policy that has been issued in respect of the motor cycle involved in the accident. The claimant was the pillion rider. We are satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned. Appropriate directions regarding payment of interest shall be issued while disposing of the appeal. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. M.A.C.A.No.1794/09 2. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for loss suffered by him on account of injury suffered in a motor accident on 10.9.2002. He was the pillion rider, 1st respondent was the rider and 2nd respondent was the insured. Admittedly, there was a comprehensive package policy. The claimant was M.A.C.A.NO.1794/09 -2- aged 50 years. He was a coolie by profession. Fracture of left humerus was suffered. There was hospitalisation for a period of 11 days. There is no indication to conclude that any permanent physical disability was suffered. 3. The Tribunal in these circumstances came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.15,350/- as compensation as per the details given below: Transport to the hospital : Rs. 500.00 Extra nourishment and bystander's expenses : Rs.1,100.00 Damage to clothing : Rs. 250.00 Pain and suffering : Rs.7,000.00 Medical expenses : Rs. 500.00 Loss of income for 3 months @ Rs.2,000/- per month : Rs.6,000.00 -------------------- Rs.15,350.00 ======== 4. The appellant/claimant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? First of all it is contended that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability to compensate the claimant and indemnify the insured. After verifying the policy, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company accepts that the policy is a M.A.C.A.NO.1794/09 -3- comprehensive package policy and in these circumstances the insured cannot successfully claim absolution from liability. In these circumstances, the first contention is answered in favour of the claimant. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company is held liable to pay the amount to the appellant/claimant and to indemnify the insured. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that quantum of compensation awarded is painfully low. Though admittedly fracture of the left humerus was suffered and the appellant was in the hospital as an in-patient for a period of 11 days, too meager and insufficient amount has been awarded under the composite had of extra nourishment and bystander's expenses. Amount is awarded at the rate of Rs.100/- per day. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled for a higher amount under this head. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering is too low. Rs.7,000/- is the amount awarded. Fracture of the left humerus was suffered. Treatment had to be undergone. He was an in-patient for 11 days. Taking all these circumstances into account, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that M.A.C.A.NO.1794/09 -4- higher amount of compensation must be awarded under the head of pain and suffering. 7. The appellant did not produce documents to prove the actual medical expenses incurred. The Tribunal hence awarded only an amount of Rs.500/- as compensation for medical expenses. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that ritualistic insistence of receipts/vouchers can only prompt the parties to resort to forging of documents. Even without any specific documents/vouchers, reasonable amounts must be awarded by the Tribunal as compensation for medical expenses incurred. This would only be realistic and reasonable and would save the claimants of the obligation to secure unworthy documents in support of the assertion of claim for medical expenses. Reasonable inferences can be drawn by any Tribunal. 11 days' hospitalisation was there and the inevitable consequential expenses can be assumed even without specific documents. We are, in these circumstances, of the opinion that it would be reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.2,500/- as compensation for medical expenses even without any documentary evidence in support of the same. In computing the amount, we have taken care to ensure that in the absence of M.A.C.A.NO.1794/09 -5- documents, only the minimum inevitable and indisputable amounts are awarded as compensation. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that considering the nature of employment of the appellant as a coolie and the nature of the injuries suffered by him – major fracture of the humerus, it must have been assumed, even without any better evidence, that the claimant must have been involuntarily unemployed for a reasonable period of time. We are satisfied that four months' involuntary unemployment can be assumed on account of the injury and the subsequent treatment. Considering the nature of the injury and the nature of employment of the appellant, in the absence of better evidence, the Tribunal had drawn the presumption of prudence that the monthly income can be reckoned only at Rs.2,000/- per mensem. We find no reason to further enhance the said amount. 9. On the basis of the above discussions, we hold that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.8,100/-(Rupees Eight Thousand and One Hundred only) as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal, as per the details shown below. M.A.C.A.NO.1794/09 -6- 1. Extra nourishment and bystander's expenses -11 xRs.2000 = Rs.2,200/- minus Rs.1,100/- = Rs.1,100/- 2. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- minus Rs. 7,000/- = Rs.3,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs. 2,500/- minus Rs. 500/- = Rs.2,000/- 4. Loss of income -4 x Rs.2000 = Rs. 8,000/- minus Rs. 6,000/- =Rs. 2,000/- ---------------- Total Rs.8,100/- ====== 10. In the result: (a) this appeal is allowed in part. (b) in supersession of the direction issued by the Tribunal in the impugned award, the 3rd respondent is directed to pay a total amount of Rs.23,450/- (Rs.15,350 + Rs.8,100/-) along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn