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 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 743 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.1550/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- AYYAPPANKUTTY, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, CHUDALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JAYARAM SUBRAHMANI SRI.P.K.NISHAD (PUZHITHARA) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SAJI KUMAR, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, PALLATH HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE. 2. K.T.JOY, KOCHUKACHELIL HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. SHAJI M.S., S/O.SEKARAN, MANGATTU HOUSE, PANIELI KARA, KOMBANADU VILLAGE. 4. K.G.SHANMUGHAN, KOTTACKAL HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, KOOVAPPADY. 5. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. P.B.NO.24, MULLAPPILLY BUILDINGS, A.M.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R4 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3,5 ADV.SRI.M.A.GEORGE, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.743 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 25/6/1999. He had suffered multiple injuries. He was unconscious after the accident. He had an episode of seizure lasting for about ten minutes when he was brought to the casualty. CT scan confirmed bifrontal contusion, right parietal hemorrhagic contusion with brain oedema and sub arachnoid hemorrhage. He was an in-patient for a period of about 39 days from 25/6/1999 to 02/08/1999. He allegedly had suffered loss of vision to the right eye. He had suffered the 3rd optical nerve injury. It was certified that the said injury is not likely to improve any further. Ext.A14 is the discharge summary and Ext.A16 is the ophthalmology report. Against a total claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, the tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.77,520/- as per the details shown below. M.A.C.A.No.743 of 2007 2 Part -1 Sl.No. Head Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount granted (Rs.) 1 Transport to hospital 1,000 1,000 2 Damages to clothing 500 250 3 Medical expenses 1,00,000 34,770 4 Extra nourishment 50,000 1,000 5 Attendance 5,000 1,000 6 Compensation for loss of amenities 1,00,000 15,000 7 Compensation for loss of expectation for life 1,00,000 -- 8 loss of earnings 25,000 4,500 (Rs.1,500/- x 3) 9 Partial loss of earnings 1,00,000 -- Part-II Sl.No. Head Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount granted (Rs.) 10 Compensation for pain and suffering 1,00,000 20,000 11 Compensation for continuing permanent disability 1,00,000 --- 12 Compensation for future loss of earnings 1,00,000 --- 13 Compensation for mental shock 1,00,000 --- Total 5,00,000 77,520/- 2. Appellant/claimant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Quantum of compensation is inadequate, it is contended. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The learned M.A.C.A.No.743 of 2007 3 counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the tribunal had erred grossly in not awarding reasonable compensation for extra nourishment and expenses of the bystander. The appellant was in the hospital for a period of 39 days. Only an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.1,000/- + Rs.1,000/-) has been awarded under the head of extra nourishment and bystander expenses. This is too inadequate. Atleast, an amount of Rs.100/- per day each must have been awarded under the said two heads, contends counsel. We find merit in the grievance raised on that aspect. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the appellant was a carpenter. The court below committed the error of reckoning him as an agriculturist. Even if he be assumed to be an agriculturist, his monthly income should have been taken not below Rs.3,000/- as claimed. The tribunal had reckoned only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income. The tribunal had awarded only three months wages as compensation for loss of earnings. Considering the nature of the injury, period of hospitalisation and treatment it must have been assumed that the appellant was involuntarily unemployed for a longer period of time, contends counsel. We find merit in that contention. We M.A.C.A.No.743 of 2007 4 are satisfied that Rs.3,000/- per mensum can safely be reckoned as the monthly income. We are further satisfied that the appellant can safely be assumed to have been involuntarily unemployed for a period of four months as a result of the accident. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the medical expenses awarded by the tribunal at Rs.34,770/- is not adequate. Bills for an amount of Rs.52,770/- were produced. Bills for Rs.15,800/- were not taken into reckoning by the tribunal for the sole reason that the I.P number and the patient's name were not mentioned in such bills. This is unfortunate. The exclusion of those bills is unrealistic. Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, the tribunal should have awarded a reasonable amount as compensation for medical expenses incurred, contends counsel. 5. We are of the opinion that reasonable inferences can certainly be drawn. Any realistic insistence on production of documents shall only persuade the parties to produce concocted documents. Period of hospitalisation, nature of injuries, nature of treatment undergone etc. have to be taken into consideration. M.A.C.A.No.743 of 2007 5 We are satisfied, under any circumstances, that for hospitalisation for a period of 39 days and for treatment as out patient thereafter, it would be absolutely reasonable to award an amount of Rs.53,000/- as compensation for medical and miscellaneous expenses. The tribunals cannot be unrealistic. Reasonable inferences will have to be drawn. Insistence on production of documents cannot mechanically be made. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is inadequate. The appellant had suffered serious injuries. He was an in-patient for a period of 39 days. He was unconscious after the accident. Taking all these relevant inputs into account, we are satisfied that compensation for pain and suffering can be enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. 7. Finally, it is contended that the appellant has suffered partial physical disability as a result of the accident. Reliance is placed on Ext.A16 Ophthalmology report to contend that the appellant had suffered injury, 3rd optical nerve palsy in the right eye. There is lesser vision on the right eye than left eye as can be seen from Ext.A16. Ext.A16 further shows that the injury is M.A.C.A.No.743 of 2007 6 not likely to improve any further. Indications galore to convincingly assure the court that the appellant has suffered defect in vision on the right eye as a result of the accident. But the extent of disability has not been competently assessed and quantified. The tribunal evidently was aware of the want of evidence. The tribunal, in these circumstances, awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities. The appellant is said to be a carpenter by profession. Good vision is very important in such an avocation. The appellant has to blame himself for not getting the extent of reduction of vision in the right eye competently assessed medically. However, we are satisfied that the court cannot omit to take note of the permanent physical disability that has resulted though an exact quantification appears to be not possible. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities can be suitably enhanced taking into account the indisputable data which suggests that the vision in the right eye was partially affected by the accident. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant would be entitled to a further amount of M.A.C.A.No.743 of 2007 7 Rs.56,530/- in addition to the amounts awarded by the tribunal as per the details given below. Rs. 1. Extra nourishment and 5,800/- bystander expenses [Rs.7,800/- (Rs.200/- x 39 days) minus Rs.2,000/-] 2. Loss of earnings 7,500/- [12,000/-(Rs.3,000/- x 4) minus Rs.4,500/-] 3. Compensation for pain and 10,000/- suffering (Rs.30,000/- minus Rs.20,000/-) 4. Compensation for loss of amenities 15,000/- (Rs.30,000/- minus Rs.15,000/-) 5. Medical expenses 18,230/- (Rs.53,000/- minus Rs.34,770/-) --------------- Total 56,530/- ====== 9. We are not persuaded to agree that the impugned award warrants interference on any other ground. 10. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.56,530/- (Rupees fifty six thousand five hundred and thirty M.A.C.A.No.743 of 2007 8 only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the tribunal in the impugned award. d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.743 of 2007 9 M.A.C.A.No.743 of 2007 10 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010