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. 179 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.1135/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- V.O. OUSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH, VADAKKEKKUDY HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. ABY PETER, S/O. PATHROSE, PANDIKKUDY HOUSE, VENGOOR KARA, VENGOOR VILLAGE. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLENCHERY BRANCH, P.B.NO.6, MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL JUNCTION, KOLENCHERY. ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH FOR R2 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. 179 of 2008-D ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of injuries suffered in a motor accident. The accident and suffering of the loss are admitted. The dispute is only about the quantum of loss suffered. 2. The Tribunal, on the evidence available, awarded an amount of Rs.11,650/- as compensation as per the details shown below: “Loss of income - Rs. 1,800/- Transportation charges - Rs. 500/- Extra nourishment - Rs. 500/- Medical Expenses - Rs. 300/- Nursing Assistance - Rs. 300/- M.A.C.A. No. 179 of 2008 -: 2 :- Damage to clothings - Rs. 250/- Pain and sufferings - Rs. 5,000/- Loss of amenities - Rs. 3,000/- ------------------ Total - Rs.11,650/- =======” 3. The claimant/appellant claims to be aggrieved by the quantification of the loss. He was an inpatient for two days (both days inclusive - from 2/5/01 to 3/5/01). He had suffered fracture of the greater tuberosity left. According to him, he had continued treatment thereafter. He was not able to pursue his normal avocation for a long period. He was employed as Security Guard and his monthly income was Rs.4,000/-, he claimed. 4. Called upon to specifically explain the challenge on various heads raised, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the quantum awarded on two specific heads. The learned counsel contends that, at any rate, the quantum of compensation awarded for loss of earnings and the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of pain and sufferings are painfully and perversely low. He was a 50 years old man and was employed as Security Guard. Though better evidence of the period of involuntary non-employment and the quantum of monthly income were not placed before the court below, the M.A.C.A. No. 179 of 2008 -: 3 :- court below was not reasonable in granting only an amount of Rs.1,800/- as compensation for loss of earnings. Similarly, after taking note of the fact that a major fracture was suffered, the Tribunal erred and granting compensation for pain and suffering at Rs.5,000/-, contends the counsel. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. Even in the absence of better evidence, we find it absolutely safe to assume that the appellant must have suffered loss of earnings to the tune of Rs.3,000/-. The appellant is, of course, guilty of not placing specific and cogent evidence about the quantum of monthly income and the period of involuntary non-employment. But in case of computation to compensation, even in the absence of specific and authentic evidence, it is perfectly possible for the Tribunal to draw prudent inferences of the probable minimum loss suffered. Adopting that, we take the view that the involuntary non-employment for a period of one month can safely be assumed from the nature of the injury suffered notwithstanding the fact that the actual period of hospitalisation was only two days. In assuming and reckoning the quantum of monthly income at Rs.3,000/-, we take note of the fact that the accident had taken place in 2001 and as early as in 1994 the II Schedule was introduced incorporating the inference of M.A.C.A. No. 179 of 2008 -: 4 :- prudence that even an unemployed person can be assumed to be earning monthly income at Rs.1,250/-. Pain and suffering endured can also be drawn from the nature of the injury suffered. Fracture of the greater tuberosity left is suffered and we find it easy to assume that an amount of Rs.10,000/- could safely have been granted as compensation for pain and suffered endured. 6. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to the following further amounts by way of compensation in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal: Loss of earnings (Rs.3,000/- minus Rs.1,800/-) - Rs. 1,200/- Pain and suffering (Rs.10,000/- minus Rs.5,000/-) - Rs. 5,000/- ---------------- Total - Rs. 6,200/- ======= 7. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The 2nd respondent shall pay to the appellant, in addition to the amounts already awarded, a further amount of Rs.6,200/-. (c) Needless to say, the said amount of Rs.6,200/-shall also M.A.C.A. No. 179 of 2008 -: 5 :- carry interest from the date of the petition as awarded by the Tribunal. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //True Copy// P.S. to Judge