IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 265 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.1652/2000 of II ADDL. M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- SHEELA, W/O.SAJEEVAN, 35 YEARS, THEKKETHODI HOUSE, ARAKKINAR PO., CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.K.VINURAJ, MAPPILAYANI HOUSE, V/133-KO KOYARITHAZHAM, PO.ERANHIPALAM, CALICUT. 2. JAYANARAYANAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR 26 YEARS, PUTHENVEEDU HOUSE, PO.PUNPALA, VANDOOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISION OFFICE-11, P.B.BUILDING, NEAR ARAYIDATHUPALAM, CALICUT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.265 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. She claimed an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs as compensation for personal injuries suffered in an accident which took place on 28/6/2000. She has sustained a fracture of the acetabulem and fracture of the nasal bone. She was an in-patient for a period of six days. In the petition, it was asserted that she is employed as a coolie. No evidence was produced in support of that assertion. As per Ext.X1, she is found to have suffered disability to the extent of 16%. No bills were produced to prove medical expenses incurred. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, reckoned her notional income at Rs.2,000/- per mensum . The admissible multiplier under the 2nd schedule was adopted. Ext.X1 certificate showing disability of 16% was accepted in full. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, considered all the materials and sailed to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.92,720/- as per the details shown M.A.C.A.No.265/09 2 below: 1. Transport to hospital Rs.1,000/- 2. Extra nourishment Rs.500/- 3. Bystander expenses Rs.600/- 4. Medical expenses Rs.500/- 5. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of amenities in life Rs.3,000/- 7. Temporary loss of income Rs.8,000/- 8. Compensation for permanent Rs.69,120/- disability Total Rs.92,720/- 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the learned counsel for the appellant wants to mount against the quantification of the amounts in the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the appellant was an in-patient for a period of six days, only an amount of Rs.500/- was awarded as medical expenses. It is further submitted that for the loss of amenities in life, only an amount of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded. We note that the M.A.C.A.No.265/09 3 amount awarded under all other heads are absolutely reasonable, taking note of the nature of injuries suffered, the period of hospitalisation and the disability. 3. The amounts awarded under the above two heads are assailed. In the total absence of better evidence and considering the period of hospitalisation (six days) and the fact that she was admitted at the Medical College hospital, we are not satisfied that the quantum of Rs.500/- fixed as medical expenses warrants any interference. This is particularly so in the light of the fact that amounts have separately been awarded under the head of transport to hospital, extra nourishment and bystanders expenditure. For loss of amenities in life, an amount of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded. It must be noted that though there was no evidence to show that the appellant was having no employment, the loss suffered by disability was compensated assuming a notional income and accepting the admissible multiplier under the 2nd schedule. The award of an amount of Rs.3,000/- as loss of amenities in life has to be considered in the light of the amounts already awarded under the head of permanent disability of the appellant who is reckoned as a M.A.C.A.No.265/09 4 person who is not employed; but only a house wife. We are not satisfied that the quantum of compensation awarded warrants appellate interference. 4. In the result, the challenge fails and this M.A.C.A is hence dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.265/09 5 M.A.C.A.No.265/09 6 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009