IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1420 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.2024/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- P.A. VARGHESE @ PRASAD, S/O. P.V. ABRAHAM, PUTHEN PURACKAL HOUSE, MANGANAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. CHATHAKUTTY, KULATHINKAL, KOZHIKODE. 2. KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY, Y.M.C.A. ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CALICUT. ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.1420 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in an accident which occurred on 17.07.2001. He was aged 44 years on the date of the accident. He claimed to be a contractor earning an income of Rs.10,000/- per mensem. Fracture of both bones of the right leg is the major injury suffered in addition to external injuries. He was an inpatient for a period of 25 days altogether in 2 spells. There is nothing to show that any permanent physical disability or reduction in earning capacity has been suffered by the claimant/appellant. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as PW1. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. 2. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the available circumstances proceeded to pass the impugned award M.A.C.A. No.1420 of 2005 2 directing payment of a total amount of Rs.1,04,864/- as per the details given below along with interest @ 6% per annum. i) Medical expenses : Rs.38,364/- ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.12,000/- iii) bystander's expenses and extra nourishment: Rs. 3,000/- iv) Transport to hospital and damage to clothing etc. : Rs. 2,500/- v) Loss of earnings : Rs. 9,000/- vi) Temporary disability and injury : Rs.25,000/- vii) Loss of amenities : Rs.10,000/- v) Disfiguration : Rs. 5,000/- ................... Total : Rs.1,04,864/- ................... 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to raise against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal for ascertaining loss of earning M.A.C.A. No.1420 of 2005 3 for a period of 6 months is painfully low. Only Rs.1,500/- has been assumed to be the monthly income. The appellant is a contractor and he earns an income of Rs.10,000/- per mensem. In these circumstances, the amount awarded under the head `loss of earning' is insufficient, contends the counsel. 4. The learned counsel for the insurance company on the contrary contends that the total amount awarded by the Tribunal is more than reasonable and just. The Tribunal has awarded amounts for temporary disability and injury at Rs.25,000/, Loss of amenities at Rs.10,000/- and disfiguration at Rs.5,000/- even without any clinching data to prove any such physical disability or loss of amenities. At any rate, the quantum awarded does not warrant interference at all, contends the counsel. The learned counsel for the insurance company further submits that though it is asserted that the appellant was getting the income of Rs.10,000/- per mensem, except his oral assertions, there is no data to support that assertion. The presumption of prudence drawn by the Tribunal that the appellant must have been earning at least an amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensem is eminently M.A.C.A. No.1420 of 2005 4 reasonable and does not warrant interference. The learned counsel points out that though the period of hospitalisation was 25 days only, the appellant has been given loss of earnings for a period of 6 months. All these were pointed out to satisfy the Court that the compensation awarded is eminently fair, just and reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference. 5. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the insurance company. We are not satisfied that the quantum awarded under any other heads warrants appellate interference. We note particularly that the total compensation awarded is eminently fair, reasonable and just. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant finally contends that interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. Relying on precedents, it is urged that interest must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. On the basis of the above discussions, we hold that the quantum of compensation awarded does not warrant interference. But we direct that the entire amount of M.A.C.A. No.1420 of 2005 5 compensation shall bear interest @ 7.5% from the date of the petition till payment. 8. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-