IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1589 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.440/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONER IN O.P.(M.V.) ------------------------------------------------ RADHAMANY, W/O SURENDRAN, MALANADA PUTHEN VEEDU, KUMUKUMCHERRY P.O., PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V.) ---------------------------------------- 1. GEORGE VARGHESE, S/O.GEORGE, NADAKKAVIL MEDAYIL VEEDU, PANNIVIZHA, ADOOR. 2. PRAKASH, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, ERUTHIL VILAYIL VEEDU, MELOOTTU, PERINGANADU- VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM BRANCH. ADVS. SRI.V.SETHUNATH FOR R.2 SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR FOR R1 SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R.3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 1589 OF 2006 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. She claimed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation for the personal injuries suffered by her in a motor accident which occurred on 27.9.2002. The appellant is a woman aged 47 years. It was claimed that she was running a hotel. She had suffered external injuries and also fracture of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsals of right foot. The evidence indicates that she was treated as an inpatient, but the period of hospitalisation is not precisely revealed. There is no case that the appellant had suffered any permanent physical disability as a result of the accident. 2. Before the Tribunal, there was the oral evidence of the claimant/appellant as PW.1. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances, awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,618/- as per the details shown below: i. Transportation charges :Rs. 500/- ii. Medical expenses (against bills produced) :Rs. 1,018/- M.A.C.A. NO.1589/2006 2 iii. Loss of income(1x1500) :Rs. 1,500/- iv. Damage to clothing and articles :Rs. 300/- v. Extra nourishment :Rs. 500/- vi. Bystander expenses :Rs. 300/- vii. Pain and suffering :Rs. 5,000/- viii. Loss of earning power :Rs. 1,500/- -------------- Total :Rs.10,618/- -------------- The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. 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 mount against the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred grossly in reckoning the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.1,500/-. We find no merit in the challenge. There was absolutely no evidence to prove the employment or income of the claimant. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, reckoned Rs.1,500/- per mensem as the probable income of the appellant assuming that she was having some income earning activity. Counsel then contends M.A.C.A. NO.1589/2006 3 that the evidence indicates that the appellant was in plaster for a period of two months for the fracture suffered by her and hence loss of earning for at least two months must have been reckoned by the Tribunal instead of one month. We agree with the learned counsel. We are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to be compensated for loss of earning for two months. 4. Counsel then contends that the compensation awarded for pain and suffering is too meagre and inadequate. The appellant had suffered fracture of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsals of right foot which was accepted by the Tribunal. The appellant had to be in plaster for a period of two months. In the circumstances, the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded for pain and suffering is inadequate, contends counsel. In the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.10,000/- can safely be awarded under the head pain and suffering. In coming to this conclusion, we take note of the fact that the appellant had to be in plaster for a period of two months on account of the fracture suffered by her. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under the other heads warrant interference. We also take note of the fact that though no disability is proved, an amount of Rs.1,500/- was awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earning capacity. 5. Counsel further contends that interest was awarded only at the M.A.C.A. NO.1589/2006 4 rate of 6% per annum and that relying on precedents, interest must have been awarded at least at the rate of 7.5% per annum. We agree with the learned counsel. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.6,500/- as shown below: i. Loss of income :Rs.1,500/-(2x1500 :minus 1500) ii. Pain and suffering :Rs.5,000/- :(10,000 minus 5,000) -------------------------- Total :Rs.6,500/- -------------------------- We further direct that the entire amount of compensation shall bear interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. 7. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.1589/2006 5 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.1589/2006 JUDGMENT 11th March, 2009 M.A.C.A. NO.1589/2006 6