IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 467 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.953/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S):PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- SARAMMA JOSEPH, W/O.K.C.JOSEPH, KUTTIPPURATH HOUSE, PAYYAPPADY, PUTHUPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJUMON J. MATTATHIL, S/O.P.O.JOSEPH, POOVAPPALLIL MATTATHIL, PARAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. RAJEEV V.P., S/O.VIJAYAPRASAD, VATATHIL HOUSE, THIRUVARPPU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM. R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.467 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 Judgment Basant, J. Claimant is the appellant. She, a nurse aged 55 years, suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 8.10.1998. Against a claim of Rs.2 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded only a total amount of Rs.37,100/- along with interest and costs. 2. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation. The appellant had suffered multiple injuries including condylar fracture of the left tibia, contusion cervical spine etc. in addition to other injuries. She claimed that she was an inpatient from 8.10.1998 to 29.11.1998 (52 days) in the hospital where she was working. According to her, she had to be leave for a period of 11 months. She further contended that she has suffered 6% permanent disability. In support of that she relied on the certificate issued by the doctor at the hospital where she is working. 3. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.37,100/- as per the details shown below: MACA 467/05 2 1. Loss of earning - Rs.6100/- 2. Transport to hospital - Rs.1000/- 3. Medical Expenses - Rs.5000/- 4. Compensation for pain and suffering - Rs.10000/- 5. Compensation for permanent disability - Rs.15,000/- -------------------- Total - Rs.37,100/- ============ 4. Challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation. Called upon to be specific and precise, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the Tribunal had erred grossly in taking the view that the appellant would have been involuntarily unemployed only for a period of two months. She was an inpatient for 52 days. Even assuming that her assertion that she was unable to pursue her avocations is not swallowed completely because she happened to be an inpatient in the hospital where she was working, still the court must take note of the nature of the injuries suffered and come to the conclusion that her demand is reasonable and acceptable. Considering the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment as an inpatient as shown in the documents which are not proved satisfactorily, we are satisfied that it will be safe to assume that the appellant must have been involuntarily unemployed for a MACA 467/05 3 period of four months. 5. For the expenditure incurred in connection with the treatment, she produced bills for a total amount of Rs.23,892/-. The Tribunal was not prepared to accept the same and directed payment of only an amount of Rs.5000/- for medical expenses. The appellant, it is only natural would have got admitted in the hospital where she was working as that must have been more convenient to her. The mere fact that she underwent treatment at the hospital where she was working is not a reason by itself to reject the evidence tendered by her. But we do note that the totality of circumstances does not inspire confidence in the assertion that such a huge amount was incurred by way of medical expenses. In any case, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can safely be reckoned as the minimum indisputable amount of expenditure incurred for treatment. 6. For compensation for pain and suffering only an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded. From the nature of injuries, particularly the condylar fracture on left tibia, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can safely be awarded as MACA 467/05 4 compensation for pain and suffering. 7. Finally, it is contended that no compensation has been awarded for the physical disability suffered. There is nothing to show that she has suffered 6% disability as stated in the medical certificate produced by her. We have been taken through the medical certificate. The precise nature of the disability suffered by her is not even described in the medical certificate. We are in these circumstances in agreement with the Tribunal that the rejection of the appellant's claim for physical disability and consequent rejection of claim for compensation for reduction in earning capacity is justified. The Tribunal had taken into account the nature of injuries and the consequent impairment in the quality of life of the appellant and awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities. It was described as compensation for disability. Even in the absence of specific and precise evidence about the disability suffered, we are persuaded to think that an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded under the composite head of physical disability and consequent impairment in the quality of life. We are not satisfied MACA 467/05 5 that the amounts awarded under any other head warrant or demand enhancement. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.26,100/- in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal as per the details shown below: 1. Loss of earnings(3043 x 4 minus Rs.6100 )-Rs.6100(Rounded) 2. Medical & Miscellaneous Expenses (15000 minus 5000) -Rs.10000/- 3. Compensation for pain and suffering (15000 minus 10000) -Rs.5000/- 4. Compensation for loss of amenities/ disability (20,000 minus 15,000) -Rs.5000/- ------------------ Total -Rs.26,100/- =========== 9. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.26,100/- in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. c) Interest shall be payable on the entire amount of compensation at the rates and for the period as directed by the Tribunal. MACA 467/05 6 d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R. BASANT, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd MACA 467/05 7