IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 18 of 2010() --------------------- OPMV.265/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ THOMAS, S/O. THOMANKUTTY, PAROKARAN HOUSE, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, KARUKUTTY.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.E.C.POULOSE SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THOMAS S/O. POULO, PARAMBI HOUSE, KARUKUTTY.P.O. 2. SAJI, S/O.THOMAS, PARAMBI HOUSE, KARUKUTTY.P.O. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ANGAMALY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.18 of 2010-A ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant/injured is the appellant. He suffered injuries and consequent permanent partial disability in a motor accident which took place on 6/1/06. He was aged between 50 and 55 years (52 years to be exact). He was a salesman under a private employer earning a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. He had suffered loss of all toes of the left foot. No disability certificate was produced. The Tribunal drew inspiration from Entry 24 in Part II of Schedule I to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and assumed that the permanent physical disability and the consequent reduction in earning capacity can be reckoned at 20%. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to award a total amount of Rs.2,15,679/- as M.A.C.A. No.18 of 2010 -: 2 :- compensation as per the details shown below: “Loss of earnings - Rs. 9,000/- Transportation expenses - Rs. 500/- Pain and suffering - Rs.20,000/- Loss of amenities - Rs.12,000/- Damage to clothings - Rs. 250/- Attendant's charges - Rs. 1,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 500/- Treatment expenses - Rs.93,229/- Disability - Rs.79,200/- --------------------- Total - Rs.2,15,679/-” ========= The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and costs. 2. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the appellants wants to mount against the the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant, first of all, contends that the amount of Rs.9,000/- awarded under the head of loss of earnings is insufficient. The assertion of the claimant that he gets a monthly income of Rs.3,000/- was fairly accepted by the court below. He was an inpatient for a period of 17 days and in the absence of better material, the Tribunal assumed that there must have been loss of earnings for a period of 3 months. We find no M.A.C.A. No.18 of 2010 -: 3 :- inadequacy in the computation of the compensation under that head. 3. For pain and suffering and loss of amenities, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.32,000/- (Rs.20,000/- plus Rs.12,000/-). It is contended that the compensation awarded under these heads are not sufficient. Period of hospitalisation, as stated earlier, was only of 17 days for amputation of all toes of the left foot. The claimant/injured was aged 52 years. In these circumstances, we find absolutely nothing wrong in the quantification of the compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. 4. The learned counsel finally contends that 50% must have been reckoned as the percentage of physical disability. No material in support of such assertion is brought to our notice. The Tribunal, in the absence of any evidence, had looked at the nature of disability and had taken assistance from the Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act. In the absence of better material, that course resorted to by the Tribunal and inference drawn that 20% can be reckoned as the physical disability drawing inspiration from Entry 24 of Part II of Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act does also appear to us to be absolutely reasonable. M.A.C.A. No.18 of 2010 -: 4 :- 5. No other grounds of challenge are raised. We are satisfied that this M.A.C.A. does not, in these circumstances, merit admission. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed as in limine. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //True Copy// P.S. to Judge