IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 323 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.735/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- BENNY S/O. JOSEPH, KALAPURAYIL HOUSE, NAGAPUZHA KARA, NOW RESIDING AT KALAPURAYIL HOUSE, OLAMATTOM KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.H.SIVARAMAN SRI.MATHEW CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. JOSE S/OMATHEW, KIZHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, NAGAPPUZHA KARA, KALLOORKADU VILLAGE. 2. UNITED INDIA, INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, THODUPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.323 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing for the second respondent. Challenge is only against adequacy of compensation awarded for loss suffered by the appellant under various heads. It is seen that the appellant as pillion rider suffered injuries such as fracture of right arm and rupture of the ear besides bruises and minor injuries. Admittedly the appellant was hospitalised for seven days and his right arm was under plaster for six weeks. The MACT under various heads awarded a total compensation of Rs.28,365/-. Counsel for the appellant contended that appellant was engaged as an employee in a private concern on a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-. For want of documents, the MACT fixed earning at Rs.2,000/- per month. Further, compensation for loss of employment is granted only for two months. The contention of the appellant is that appellant was not employed for longer period. Similarly, for pain and suffering, the claim of the appellant is at much more than what is granted by the MACT which is Rs.12,000/-. Last contention raised is about the paltry 2 sum of Rs.500/- granted for extra nourishment and bystander's expense. Counsel for the Insurance Company opposed enhancement on the ground that the award is liberal and in accordance with the Schedule provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. We are of the view that the compensation is inadequate under various heads. In the first place, compensation for pain and suffering fixed by the MACT at Rs.12,500/- is too low because disability was on the right hand of the appellant and appellant's hand was in plaster for six weeks are admitted facts. A right hander will be substantially disabled, if his right arm is under plaster, which admittedly the appellant suffered for six weeks. It is common knowledge that six weeks in the plaster will take quite some time for the arm to restore to normal position and achieve flexibility. Therefore, considering these facts we enhance the compensation for pain and suffering from Rs.12,500/- to rupees twenty thousand(Rs.20,000/-). So far as the loss of employment is concerned, we feel appellant is entitled to three months' benefit considering his treatment for two months including plastering of right hand and the time taken for reaching normalcy. We, therefore, increase the period of loss of employment from two months to three months. So far as the wages fixed by the MACT at Rs.2,500/- per month is concerned, even if there is no evidence about the employment in 3 the private concern as accountant, we feel, still a person can earn atleast Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, we jack up the compensation for loss of employment from Rs.4,000/- to rupees nine thousand(Rs.9,000/-). The last claim i.e. cost for extra nourishment and bystander's expense for hospitalisation for seven days is increased from Rs.500/- to rupees three thousand (Rs.3,000/-). Consequently there will be direction to the second respondent to pay an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest over and above what is granted by the MACT. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Since the amount involved is very small, we direct the second respondent to make payment within one month from date of receipt of copy of this judgment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms