IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1047 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.844/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- THANKAVELU, S/O.KUPPUSWAMY, ARUVAKKURISH TALUK, VADUKKAPETTY VILLAGE, KAROOR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU STATE, NOW RESIDING AT MARIYIL LODGE, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHACKO, S/O.VARKEY, KOLACHERIL HOUSE, PERUNNILAM BHAGOM, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE, ERATTUPETTA THEKKEKKARA KARA. 2. C.M.MOHAMMAD, CHANDUKAMPARAMBIL, ERATTUPETTA. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.1047 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for injuries suffered by him in a motor accident. Claimant is aged 18 years. He claims to be employed as a collection agent of a private financier. He claimed that he was getting an income of Rs.5,000/- per mensem. A crush injury on the right leg is the major injury suffered. Skin and muscle loss was suffered. Flesh transplantation had to be done. A plastic surgery was conducted. He was an inpatient for 30 days. P.O.P cast was applied, it is revealed. The claimant examined PW1, a doctor of the medical board which issued Ext.X1 to show that the appellant had not suffered any disability. Exts.A1 to A12 and Ext.X1 were marked. 2. The Tribunal after adverting to all the relevant circumstances came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.63,600/- only as compensation. M.A.C.A. No.1047 of 2008 2 Interest was also allowed from the date of the petition. Accordingly the impugned award was passed. 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the precise nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the finding that the appellant could be assumed to be earning a monthly income of only Rs.2,000/- is not justified. Though it is claimed that the appellant, a young person aged about 18 years, was employed as a collection agent of a private financier and was drawing an income of Rs.5,000/- per mensem, except the assertion of the claimant in the claim petition no better materials were produced. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, proceeded on the asumption of prudence that at least an amount of Rs.2,000/- must have been earned or can be assumed to have been earned by the appellant. We do not find any reason to interfere with that finding of fact by the Tribunal at the instance of the appellant. 4. The counsel then contends that disability has been suffered by the appellant. Ext.X1 and the evidence of PW1 do not show this. According to the appellant, the appellant had M.A.C.A. No.1047 of 2008 3 suffered not orthopedic disability but disability on account of the crush injury suffered. In the light of Ext.X1 and the oral evidence of PW1 and the total absence of any material to show that the appellant had suffered any disability, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error in not accepting the claim for reduction in earning capacity as a result of the alleged physical disability. 5. It appears to us that the Tribunal did take note of the nature of the injury and the effect which the injury must have left behind. This is evident from the award of an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in addition to the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded as compensation for pain and suffering. Even in the absence of proved disability, an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded as loss of amenities by the Tribunal evidently taking note of the consequence of the crush injury suffered on the right leg. We are not satisfied that the appellant is entitled for any further amount. As already noticed, interest has already been granted @ 9% per annum. We do not in these circumstances find any reasons to interfere with the impugned award. M.A.C.A. No.1047 of 2008 4 6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-