IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1011 of 2011() --------------------------------- OPMV.1202/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT : ------------------------------------ SHAHAJ, AGED 27, S/O. AHAMMED, MANAKUNNIYIL HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR P.O., THALASSERY(VIA), KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVs. SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN SMT.DIVYA K.NAIR RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. RANJITH SREEKUMAR, AGED 30, S/O. SREEKUMAR, CHALLAMPATTA VEEDU, KAVALAPARA, SHORNUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679523. 2. BABY SREEKUMAR, W/O SREEKUMAR, CHALLAMPATTA VEEDU, KAVALAPARA, SHORNUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679523. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU STATE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ C.M.APPL. No. 1559/2011 & M.A.C.A. No.1011 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT R. BASANT,J. C.M.APPL. No.1559/2011 This petition is to condone the delay of 162 days in filing the MA.C.A. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits. We are proceeding to dispose of the appeal straightaway without waiting for issue and return of notice to the respondents. We are satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned. The petition is allowed. The delay is condoned. M.A.C.A. No. 1011 of 2011 The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 15.05.2007. Against a total claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.44,250/- as per the details given below: M.A.C.A. No. 1011 of 2011 2 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded (in Rupees) Basis-vital details in a nut shell 1 Loss of earning(Total) 9000 3000 X 3 2 Loss of earning(Partial) 3 Medical and Miscellaneous Expenses 20550 Medical bills for Rs.20550/- produced 4 Future treatment 5 Bystander expenses 6 Transportation expenses 1000 7 Extra nourishment 1200 Treated as inpatient for 6 days 8 Damage to clothing etc. 500 Ankel injury (Rt) with # lateral malleolus 9 Pain and Suffering 10000 open chip fracture base of proximal phalanx(Rt) middle finger 10 Loss of marriage prospects Nil 11 Loss of job opportunity Nil 12 Loss of love and affection 13 Loss of estate 14 Loss/reduction in earning capacity Nil 15 Loss of enjoyment in life 2000 16 Continuing or permanent disability Nil Disability not proved. Total 44,250/- 2. The appellant was an inpatient for a total period of 6 days. He has suffered ankle injury (right) with fracture of the lateral malleolus. He had further suffered an open chip fracture base of proximal phalanx of right middle finger. He produced bills of Rs.20,550/- for medical and miscellaneous expenses incurred. M.A.C.A. No. 1011 of 2011 3 There is no evidence to prove any disability suffered. 3. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal proceeded to award the said amount of Rs.44,250/- as per the details given above. The challenge is only on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all, contends that the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering is too low. We have already noticed the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment. We do further note that an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of enjoyment in life, in addition to the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering. There is nothing to show that there was any suffering after the period of treatment. Rs.12,000/- has thus already been awarded really under the head of pain and suffering. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that an amount of Rs.9,000/- awarded under the head of loss of earnings is inadequate. According to the appellant, he was getting a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The court below did not accept such assertion. An amount of Rs.9000/- was M.A.C.A. No. 1011 of 2011 4 awarded as compensation(3X3000). Monthly income reckoned at Rs.3000/- is inadequate, it is contended. The appellant was an inpatient only for a period of 6 days. But the Tribunal assumed that there must have been involuntary unemployment for a period of three months. This is a presumption drawn in favour of the appellant. Whatever inadequacy be there in reckoning the quantum of monthly income, is made up by the assumption of the Tribunal that the appellant must have been involuntarily unemployed for a period of three months. 5. In any view of the matter, we are not persuaded to agree that the amount of Rs.44,250/- awarded as compensation is not just and reasonable to invoke our appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ln