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 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 MACA.No. 524 of 2005(D) ----------------------------------- (O.P(MV).NO.1193/1999 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI) .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------- P.UNNIMAMMAD, S/O.MARAKKAR HAJI, EDAVAZHIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.MALAPPURAM DOWN HILL, NOW RESIDING AT S-22 FEDERAL GARDENS, PULINCHODE, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI. SYRIAC MATHEW. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. K.MOHAMED, S/O.ALAVI, KEERIKKOTTIL HOUSE P.O, KANNAMVETTUKAVU, DRIVER. 2. C.K.GIRIJA, W/O.MOHANAN, VANAJOSTHNA EACHEME, P.O.PANAMARAM, R.C. OWNER. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KALPETTA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 524 of 2005 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This appeal is at the instance of the victim of a road traffic accident for enhancement of compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. As against a claim of Rs.4,99,943/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,17,580/- to him with 6% interest thereon from the date of petition till realization. Respondent No.3, Insurance Company, was directed to pay the compensation. 2. It is primarily contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed a grave error in refusing to reckon the period of privilege leave for 146 days, which the appellant was constrained to take for the purpose of his prolonged treatment. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the period of privileged leave could have been encashed by him, if only the mishap had not MACA 524/2005 2 occurred. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is that the loss sustained by the appellant in this regard ought to have been compensated. 3. The other contention raised by the learned counsel is that while computing the compensation for disability, his monthly salary was reckoned as Rs.6,000/-, as against the admitted gross salary of Rs.19,568/- as an Officer of a bank. 4. It is on record that the appellant had suffered a fracture on his femur. It is true that he had undergone treatment in three hospitals, aggregating to a total period of 55 days. But, it is the admitted position that his employer had paid a sum of Rs.73,974/- towards medical expenses. After deducting the said amount, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,800/- towards medical expenses. It is yet again true that the appellant had availed of leave under various heads viz., privilege leave for 146 days, unavailed casual leave for 5 days, sick leave on full pay for 38 days and sick leave on half pay for 213 days. It was taking into account the total number of days of leave availed of by the MACA 524/2005 3 appellant under various heads, that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.69,760/- towards loss of earning. While doing so, the fact that the appellant had to avail of leave on half pay was also apparently kept in view. 5. The Tribunal accepted the percentage of disability of 7% as assessed by the Medical Board. Having perused the entire materials available on record, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has by and large awarded a reasonable amount of compensation to the appellant . 6. However, it is seen that the appellant has not been awarded any compensation for the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Keeping in view the nature of disability due to shortening of right lower limb and restriction of hip flexion and rotation to an extent of 15 degree, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have awarded some reasonable amount under that head, in addition to the compensation granted to him under the head of disability. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that Rs.25,000/- would be reasonable on this MACA 524/2005 4 count. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. 7. For pain and suffering, an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded particularly keeping in view the prolonged treatment of 55 days in the hospital. We do so. 8. Thus, the appellant is entitled to get a total sum of Rs.35,000/- as enhanced compensation. He is entitled to get interest @ 7.5% p.a. for the enhanced sum. However, it is made clear that the appellant shall not be entitled to get interest for 287 days, the period of delay with which the appeal was filed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn.