IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 MACA.No. 1753 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.735/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------------- MARY JOSEPH, W/O. LATE T.K.JOSEPH, THALIYANCHIRA HOUSE, PUTHUPPERIYARAM KARA, MANAKKAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS SRI.N.N.ELAYATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. CHINNAMMA THOMAS, PALAMPADOM, PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM. 2. K.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PAREKKULAM BUILDING, KOTTAYAM. 4. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., T.H. TOWERS, MARKET ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: smt HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ----------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1753 OF 2006 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 735/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha is the appellant. The Tribunal, after considering the case on merits, passed an award for a sum of Rs.52,920/-, with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till the date of deposit. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay the award amount. 2. The petitioner was a passenger in a private car at the time of the accident. The Tribunal absolved the insurance company from the liability since the policy issued in favour of the insurer is an “Act policy”. Since the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle and since the policy did not cover a passenger for gratis, the Tribunal rightly held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded is too low and inadequate. He pointed out that the monthly income claimed is only Rs.2,400/- per M.A.C.A.No. 1753 OF 2006 :2: month. The contention of the Counsel is that Rs.2,400/- per month is the minimum monthly income that can be taken into account for the purpose of awarding compensation. Eventhough, Rs,3000/- was claimed by the claimant, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.1500/-. Thus the monthly income arrived is too low and inadequate. Therefore, this court refix the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only). The Tribunal found that the claimant could not be able to attend her work for a period of three months. Therefore, the loss of earning at the rate of Rs.3000/- for three months is Rs.9000/-. Deducting Rs.4500/- awarded, the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4500/-. 4. An amount of Rs.33620/- was awarded towards medical expenses. The balance amount of compensation awarded is approximately Rs.19000/-. The certificates produced as Exts.A1 to A.13 and A14 medical certificate shows that she was under treatment for a considerable length of period. Therefore, towards the pain and suffering the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.10000/- instead of 7500/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to an additional amount of M.A.C.A.No. 1753 OF 2006 :3: Rs.2500/- towards pain and suffering. For loss of amenities also, the Tribunal failed to award a reasonable amount as compensation, Rs.4000/-is awarded on a reasonable estimate. Considering injuries sustained and considering length of treatment, the Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of Rs.7500/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,500/- towards loss of amenities. Thus the appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.10,500/- with interest thereon at the same rate awarded by the Tribunal from the date of application till the date of deposit. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified. The appellant is entitled to realise an additional compensation of Rs.10,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of application till the date of deposit. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE smt