IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 264 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.1149/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------- ABU, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, AMBALAMKUNNATH HOUSE, PANAMANNA PO., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RENJITH RAJ DANIAL, KURICHITHARAYIL HOUSE, ALUVA.E.KADUNGALLOOR, U.C.COLLEGE.PO., ERNAKULAM (DRIVER CUM OWNER OF MARUTHI ZEN BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-04F/6940), 2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KODAVATH SHOPPING COMPLEX, SUB JAIL ROAD, PB.NO.108, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM(INSURER OF THE MARUTHI ZEN BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-04F/6940) BY // THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 264 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claims an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the personal injuries sustained by him in an accident which occurred on 12.6.2005. The appellant was employed abroad as a truck driver. He suffered the injuries on his way to the airport to proceed to his place of employment. He claims that his monthly income was Rs.41,300/-. He had suffered fracture of the patella and left radius as also other external injuries. He was an inpatient for a total period of 13 days. He was shifted to two hospitals from the place of accident. He had not suffered any disability. 2. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.93,250/- as per the details shown below: i. Loss of earning :Rs.20,000/- (10,000x2) ii. Pain and suffering :Rs.15,000/- M.A.C.A. NO.264/2009 2 iii. Loss of amenities :Rs. 7,000/- iv. Expenses for transportation, extra nourishment and damage to clothing :Rs. 3,000/- v. Medical expenses (as per bills produced) :Rs.46,300/- vi. Expenses for bystander :Rs. 1,950/- -------------- Total : :Rs.93,250/- -------------- Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to direct payment of Rs.93,250/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition and cost of Rs.1,000/-. 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount awarded under the head pain and suffering is inadequate. Learned counsel further contends that though Ext.A11, copy of the air ticket, was produced, the Tribunal did not award the cost of the said air ticket which the appellant could not make use of as a result of the accident/injury. 4. We find no merit in the challenge raised on these grounds. An amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded for pain and suffering. M.A.C.A. NO.264/2009 3 Considering the nature of the injuries and the period of hospitalisation, we are satisfied that the said amount awarded is fair, just and reasonable and does not warrant any appellate interference. 5. The grievance that no amount has been awarded towards loss suffered on account of the cancellation of the journey is found to be without any material to support the same. The Tribunal noted that the original air ticket has not been produced. It cannot lightly be assumed that the original ticket was not made use of for another journey. Was the appellant later permitted to travel on the same ticket? or, did he suffer any percentage of loss because he was unable to travel as per the schedule? There is significantly no evidence on these aspects. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error in not granting any amount under that head. 6. In the result, the Motor Accidents Claims Appeal is dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.264/2009 4 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.264/2009 JUDGMENT 20th February, 2009