IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 1708 of 2006(F) ----------------------- OPMV.868/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- P.J. JOSEPH, PUTHUKKULAM, ANGADY P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. T.K. PHILIP, S/O. JOSEPH KURIAN, VETTIKATTU THEKKEKUTTU, NALUKODI P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 2. T.P. CHRIAN, S/O. T.K. PHILIP, VETTICATTUTHEKKEKUTTY, NALUKODI P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SALIM BUILDINGS, CHANGANACHERRY. ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A No.1708 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He staked a claim for an amount of Rs.2,76,000/- as compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 03.04.2000. He claimed to be a coolie. No evidence was adduced to prove his monthly income. He suffered fracture of the fibula. He was an inpatient for a period of 7 days. Before the Tribunal he produced Exts.A1 to A7. No oral evidence was adduced. 2. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs proceeded to award a total amount of Rs.25,500/- as compensation under the following heads. i) Loss of earning (3 X 1500) : Rs. 4,500/- ii) Medical expenses (against bills produced) : Rs. 4,500/- iii) Bystander's expenses : Rs. 1,000/- iv) Transport expenses : Rs. 500/- v) Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/- M.A.C.A No.1708 of 2006 2 vii) Disability (global) : Rs. 5,000/- --------------- Total : Rs.25,500/- ---------------- Interest was directed to be paid @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition. 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What are the reasons ? Called upon to explain the precise grounds on which the appellant wants to challenge the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on two specific grounds. The counsel first of all contends that adoption of Rs.1,500/- only as the monthly income is not justified. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the quantum of compensation awarded for physical disability endured is not fair, proper and just. We have considered both the contentions. There is no better and acceptable evidence to show the actual income of the appellant – admittedly a coolie. The accident took place in 2000. The Tribunal drew the presumption of prudence that the appellant must have been earning an income of Rs.1,500/- per mensem. Even in the absence of better evidence, we are not persuaded to agree that the said decision of the Tribunal warrants appellate interference. M.A.C.A No.1708 of 2006 3 4. The only other ground of challenge is about the quantum of compensation awarded for disability. Consequently, there is nothing to prove that the appellant has suffered any disability. Fracture of fibula is the injury suffered. There is nothing to show that the fracture had not united well or that it left behind any complication or disability. Even in the absence of such evidence taking note of the injury suffered, the Tribunal has indulgently granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation. We are not satisfied that any further amount deserves to be awarded under that head. 5. It follows from the above discussions that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. We do so. 6. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-