IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 2913 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.853/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OPMV.853/05 OF MACT,ERNAKULAM --------------------------------------------------------- P.V.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 63,S/O.VASU,PALAKOTTIL HOUSE, IRUMPAYAM DESOM,VELLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.OMANAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OPMV.853/05 OF MACT,ERNAKULAM ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAKRISHNAN,6508(13/332), QUARTERS NO.134E,AMBALAMUGHAL, VADAVUKODE,PUTHENCRUZ. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., SHARANYA,HOSPITAL ROAD,COCHIN 11. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.2913 of 2009-C ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant is the appellant. He suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 5/10/04. He is aged 59 years. Fracture of shaft of tibia and fibula and fracture of 5th and 6th ribs are the injuries noted. It is said that he was an inpatient; but no material whatsoever was placed before court to prove the period of treatment as an inpatient. There was no evidence other than Ext.A2 wound certificate and Ext.A6 X-ray produced which has a direct reflection on the question of quantum. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation with interest and costs as per the details shown below: “Hospitalisation, transportation, attendants expenses etc. - Rs. 1,000/- Loss of earnings - Rs. 9,000/- M.A.C.A. No.2913 of 2009 -: 2 :- Pain and suffering - Rs.18,000/- For discomfort & inconvenience - Rs.12,000/- ----------------- Total - Rs.40,000/- ======= 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the quantum of compensation awarded is too low. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant argues that the amounts awarded under all heads are inadequate, unreasonable and unjust. 3. We are unable to agree. On the materials available, we note that there is nothing to show that he was hospitalised even. The period of hospitalisation cannot be ascertained. Monthly income has been reckoned by the Tribunal even in the absence of any better evidence as Rs.3,000/-. Even in the wake of the appellant not furnishing any evidence about the period of treatment, the Tribunal assumed that three months involuntary non-employment must have taken place. For pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.18,000/-. The Tribunal evidently took note of the fracture of tibia and fibula and fracture of 5th and 6th ribs while awarding this amount of compensation for pain and suffering. We feel that the Tribunal evidently felt that adequate material has not been placed before it and, in these circumstances, notwithstanding the failure/ M.A.C.A. No.2913 of 2009 -: 3 :- omission of the claimant to place any better material before court, the Tribunal just assumed that Rs.12,000/- can be paid for discomfort and inconvenience in addition to an amount of Rs.1,000/- for hospitalisation, transportation etc. In any view of the matter, we are unable to agree that on the materials placed before the Tribunal, the award can be said to be defective or unreasonable in any manner. We do see that the Tribunal has obviously erred on the side of the claimant to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation even in the absence of adequate material. We are not persuaded to agree that the appellate jurisdiction deserves to be invoked to interfere with the impugned award. Even before the appellate court, it is significant that no material has been produced and no contention has been raised that adequate material could not be placed before the Tribunal for any perceivable reason. 4. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge M.A.C.A. No.2913 of 2009 -: 4 :-