IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 198 of 2004() -------------------------------- OPMV.242/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------- R.CHANDRA SEKHARAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 37, HAVING RESIDENCE AT PALLAMKEEZHILKALAM, KANNADI NOW RESIDING AT S.R.K.NAGAR, OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDETS ------------------------- 1. K.C.VARGHESE, AGED AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, A.C.M.HOUSE, 28/109, MEPPAARAMBA, PALLIPPURAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT, OWNER OF KL 9D/7169 SCOOTER. 2. KRISHNA DAS, S/O.ARICHAMI, AGED 30, RESIDING AT KURUMENKADE HOUSE, THENKURRISSI, PALAKKAD DRIVER OF THE VEHICLES. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PALAKKAD (POLICY NO.101201/31/011/16/17596/99 VALID FROM 06.02.2000 TO 05.02.2001) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.198 OF 2004 --------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Basheer, J. Appellant, who had sustained certain injuries in a motor accident, had preferred a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which was allowed in part. He has preferred this appeal challenging the inadequecy of the award passed by the Tribunal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. 3. The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that on 13th November, 2000, while he was riding on a two wheeler as pillion, it capsized and resulted in certain injuries to him. Respondent No.1 was the owner and respondent No.2 the rider of the two wheeler at the time of the accident. The appellant claimed a total sum of Rs. Two lakh as compensation M.A.C.A. No.198/2004 2 for the injuries allegedly sustained by him. His case was that he was working as a laboratory assistant in a school. Respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and they were set exparte. 4. Respondent No.3, Insurance Company, while admitting the policy coverage in respect of the two wheeler contended that the version of the accident given by the appellant was not correct. However the appellant did not adduce any oral evidence to substantiate his case, though Ext.A2 to A11 were marked on his side. In Ext.A2 wound certificate, the following injuries were noted: “pain, swelling to forearm, pain, swelling right leg, X-ray right leg, fracture tibia and fibula.” 5. Ext.A3 discharge summary issued by the Fort Hospital, Palakkad, revealed that he was admitted in the hospital on 13th November, 2000 and discharged on 23rd of the instant month. In the said certificate, against the column pertaining to “Diagnosis” it was noted as “fracture fibula right”. The treatment given to the appellant was indicated as “ORIF plate and screw fracture right”. M.A.C.A. No.198/2004 3 6. The Tribunal after considering the entire materials available on record, namely, the documents produced by the appellant, awarded a sum of Rs.56,800/- with 9% interest p.a. thereon from the date of petition (13.3.2001/-) till date of realisation and a cost of Rs.750. Respondent No.3, Insurance Company, was directed to pay the above sum to the appellant. 7. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are given below: pain and suffering 12,000/- Bystanders expenses 1,650/- Loss of Income 10,000/- Future treatment 4,000/- Medical expenses 17,650 Loss of amenities etc. 7,000/- Extra nourishment 2,000/- Transportation 2,500/- 8. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding only a sum of Rs.17,650/- towards medical expenses though the appellant had produced medical bills totaling to Rs.27,945/-. It is contended by the M.A.C.A. No.198/2004 4 learned counsel that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the entire amount covered under the bills. 9. We are afraid the above contention is wholly untenable, especially, since the appellant had not bothered to step into the box and speak about the expenses that he incurred with specific reference to the bills produced by him. In the absence of such evidence given by the appellant it cannot be said that the Tribunal had committed any illegality in refusing to swallowed or accepted each and every document which were dumped in the court. The Tribunal had arrived at the figure of Rs.17,650/- after perusing the entire bills. 10. The next contention raised by the appellant is that going by the nature of the injuries he ought to have been awarded a reasonable amount under the head of disability. As rightly noticed by the Tribunal, the Doctor who allegedly issued the disability certificate reckoning the disability at 6% was not examined. There was no material before the Tribunal other than the so called disability certificate to establish that the fracture on his fibula had resulted in any loss of earning power or caused M.A.C.A. No.198/2004 5 any permanent disability. As mentioned earlier, the appellant never bothered to appear before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the refusal of the Tribunal to give compensation under that specific head of disability cannot be faulted. 11. But, it can be noticed that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income and a further sum of Rs.7,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.2000/- for extra nourishment etc. Apart from that, for future treatment, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,000/-. 12. The award was passed by the Tribunal way back on 17th November, 2003. This appeal was filed before this Court on 3rd January, 2004. Appeal was admitted and notice was ordered to the respondents on 12th February, 2004. But, till 28th January, 2005, the appellant did not pay the process and on that day the Division Bench directed the appellant to pay the process. It appears that the process was paid thereafter. But, it was noticed by the Registry that process was defective and therefore notice was not issued. The case was posted by the Registry noticing the above defect on 2nd August, 2007. There was no representation. M.A.C.A. No.198/2004 6 Even thereafter, the appellant did not take any steps to pay the process to cure the defect in the process and therefore notice could not be issued. Ultimately, on 28th January, 2010, the appellant filed I.A.No.258/2010 with a prayer to delete respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, from the party array. That application was allowed when it came up before us on 24.3.2010. 13. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. In our view, the Tribunal has granted the appellant a very reasonable amount of compensation. It must be noticed that the appellant had not presented himself before the Tribunal. Even after filing the appeal, the appellant has been totally indifferent. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the appeal is without any merit. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ps