IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.NO. 508 OF 2004() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1799/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- ROSAKUTTY W/O. PAULOSE, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTAPURATHU @ THANDEL HOUSE, PANICKANKUDY KARA, KONNATHADY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. O.J.KURIAKOSE, S/O. JOHN, URUMBANAL HOUSE, PANICKANKUDY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. JOSEPH, S/O. GEORGE, PANACKAL HOUSE, KURISINGAL BHAGOM, PANICKANKUTY P.O., KONNATHADY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV FOR R1 SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.508 of 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Thomas P. Joseph, J. Appellant, an Attender in Janatha Hospital, during the relevant time while travelling in a Jeep driven by the second respondent met with an accident involving that vehicle on 27.5.2000. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the second respondent who was driving that vehicle, she claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. Tribunal found that the offending vehicle hit a signal post due to its rash and negligent driving by the second respondent, respondents are liable to pay compensation and awarded Rs.31,000/-. Appellant, claiming that compensation awarded is meagre has preferred this appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the contesting respondent. 3. Point for consideration is whether appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation? 4. Perused the relevant records. M.A.C.A. No.508 of 2004 -: 2 :- 5. The Point: Though the third respondent insurer of the offending vehicle had raised a contention that appellant was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle, the Tribunal found against that contention. What arises for consideration in this appeal is only whether appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation as claimed by her. Exhibit A5 is the copy of the wound certificate. It is seen that the appellant suffered lacerated wound on the right eyebrow 9x2 cm. with oedema of upper eye lids, lacerated wound on the upper lip 2x2 cm. and avulsion (R) upper incisor. Report of CT Scan showed diffuse brain oedema, fracture of right frontal bone and fracture of naso ethmoid complex. Exhibit A6 is the discharge summary. Appellant underwent inpatient treatment for 15 days. It is also revealed from Exhibit A6 that she had fracture of transverse process of CI and TI vertebra and fracture of 1st rib, right side. Exhibit A7 series are medical bills for Rs.15,461/-. Tribunal found that items 26 to 31 in Exhibit A7 series cannot be entertained and the rest of the bills covered Rs.11,603/-. Tribunal found that appellant may not have been able to work for a period of two months and awarded Rs.3,000/- as compensation for loss of earnings. M.A.C.A. No.508 of 2004 -: 3 :- 6. It is contended by the counsel for appellant that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal and compensation awarded on all counts are low. Further contention is that even in the absence of any certificate regarding disability, compensation ought to have been awarded for disability and loss of earning power considering the nature of the injuries evidenced by Exhibit A6 and the evidence of P.W1, Medical Officer who has treated the appellant. 7. Appellant claimed that she was earning Rs.2,500/- per month from her job as Attender in Janatha Hospital. Tribunal however, fixed the monthly income as Rs.1,500/-. We do not find reason to disbelieve the version of the appellant that she was working as Attender in Janatha Hospital during the relevant time. Monthly income claimed by the appellant being reasonable, we are persuaded to accept the same. 8. It is seen that the appellant sustained severe injuries as proved by Exhibit A5 and A6. Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- for of loss of earnings for a period of two months. In the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant and considering the fact that she had undergone inpatient treatment for 15 days, we are inclined to think that she would not have been able to work for three months. At the M.A.C.A. No.508 of 2004 -: 4 :- rate of Rs.2,500/- per month compensation for loss of earnings payable to the appellant comes to Rs.7,500/- as against Rs.3,000/-. Appellant is entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.4,500/- on that count. 9. So far as disability and loss of earning power are concerned, it is not the case of the appellant that on account of the injuries sustained, she lost her job. Hence the claim for compensation for disability and loss of earning cannot stand. It is also revealed from the evidence of P.W.1, Medical Officer that fracture of C1 and T1 vertebrae and fracture of maxilla had no clinical significance. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the contention that appellant suffered disability and consequent loss of earning power. At the same time, considering the nature of the injuries proved by Exhibits A5, A6 and X1 (Exhibit X1 is the treatment record), we are inclined to think that appellant has to suffer some discomfort and inconvenience due to the injuries which is required to be compensated. Considering all relevant factors, we award Rs.6,000/- as compensation on that count. Though it is contended by the learned counsel that compensation awarded on other counts are low, on considering the relevant facts and evidence adduced, we are not M.A.C.A. No.508 of 2004 -: 5 :- inclined to accept that contention. Thus the additional compensation payable to the appellant is Rs.10,500/- which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Appeal therefore, is allowed in part. Appellant is allowed to realise a further sum of Rs.10,500/- (Rupees Ten thousand and five hundred only) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum from the date of application till realisation from respondents 1 to 3, jointly and severally. Third respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the said amount in the Tribunal. On such deposit appellant is allowed to withdraw that amount. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv M.A.C.A. No.508 of 2004 -: 6 :-