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. 1073 of 2011() ------------------------------------ OP(MV)NO.1/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ NOUSHAD K.K., S/O.KUNJI BAPU, KOLATHUKARAN HOUSE, P.O.CHERPU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. SIVAN T.K., S/O.KUNJAM PILLAI, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, VILANGANNUR, P.O.PEECHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN-680 653 2. BINU, S/O.SIVADASAN, VARAKIL HOUSE, MULADUMPARA, P.O.PEECHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN-680 653 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, CITY HEIGHTS BUILDING, P.O.CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN-680 307 BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts R. BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appl.1648 of 2011 & M.A.C.A.No.1073 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 Order/Judgment Basant, J. C.M.Appl.1648 of 2011 This petition is to condone the delay of 6 days in filing the appeal. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits. We are proceeding to dispose of the appeal. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. M.A.C.A.1073 of 2011 Claimant is the appellant. Against a total claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.49,300/- as compensation as per the details shown below: 1. Loss of earning(2500x4) - Rs.10,000/- 2. Medical and Miscellaneous Expenses - Rs.8772/- 3. By-stander's expenses - Rs.3000/- 4. Transportation expenses - Rs.1500/- 5. Extra-nourishment - Rs.1500/- 6. Damages to clothing - Rs.500/- 7. Pain and suffering - Rs.16000/- 8. Disability, Loss of earning power, Loss of amenities, Injury etc. - Rs.8000/- --------------------- Total - Rs.49,272/- Rounded to- Rs.49,300/- ============= C.M.Appl.1648/11 & MACA 1073/11 2 2. Challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. The appellant/claimant had suffered injuries such as abrasion on left knee, left ankle, left foot, left hand, forehead, wound on the lower lip and contusion on left hip. X-ray and CMR were done. Fracture dislocation of left hip was confirmed. He continued as inpatient from 28.11.2003 to 30.12.2003. He was asked to continue medication for one week. He claimed that his monthly salary was Rs.6,000/-. He is employed as a supervisor in a private textile shop. Salary and leave certificates were produced to show that his monthly salary was Rs.6000/- and that he was on leave for a period of 8 months from December,2003 till July, 2004. These documents, Exts.A7 and A8 were not fully accepted by the Tribunal as they were not proved strictly. The Tribunal appears to have reckoned Rs.2500/- as the monthly income. We note that the accident took place on 28.11.2003. In the absence of better evidence, that assumption made by the Tribunal cannot obviously be faulted. 3. As stated earlier, the challenge is on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum of compensation. Called upon to be more specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that C.M.Appl.1648/11 & MACA 1073/11 3 the amount awarded under the head of loss of earnings, i.e. Rs.10,000/-, is too low. The Tribunal should have accepted that the appellant was involuntary unemployed for a period of 8 months. The monthly salary assumed is also unrealistic and inadequate, contends counsel. 4. We note that a total amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of earnings. About the period of involuntary unemployment, reasonable inferences can be drawn from the materials available which would show that he was an inpatient for a period of about one month. Subsequently, he was asked to continue medication for a period of one week. There is nothing to show that he was obliged to be unemployed beyond that period. The Tribunal appears to have assumed that the compensation for involuntary unemployment can be granted for four months. Any inadequacy in the computation of monthly income is thereby nullified by the much higher period of involuntary unemployment reckoned by the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of earning power and that under the composite head of disability amount of C.M.Appl.1648/11 & MACA 1073/11 4 Rs.8,000/- alone has been paid. There is nothing to show that there has been any disability and consequent impairment in the quality of life. In spite of that, the Tribunal taking the totality of the circumstances into account had directed payment of Rs.8000/- under the head of loss of amenities. At any rate, we are not able to accept that the amount fixed by the Tribunal is inadequate or insufficient. 6. We are in these circumstances satisfied that the total amount of Rs.49,300/- awarded as compensation is fair, reasonable and just and the same does not, at any rate, warrant our interference invoking the appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the M.V.Act. 7. This appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. R. BASANT, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd C.M.Appl.1648/11 & MACA 1073/11 5