IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 2331 of 2007 ----------------------- OPMV.2000/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------- SANKARANKUTTY,S/O. KUTTAPPAN, KARIKKANTHARA HOUSE,P.O. POTTORE, VIA M.G.KAVU,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. P.T.JOHNSON,S/O.THOMOTHY, PALLISSERY HOUSE, P.O. VALARKKAVU KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR. 2. KESAVA NAIR,S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR KOTTAYIL HOUSE, P.O. VETTUKKAD THRISSUR. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AMBIKA ARCADE M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2331 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner is the appellant. He was working as a Trolley man in the Indian Railway. On 24.12.2002, in the morning hours while he was proceeding on his bicycle through Patturaikkal-Thrissur public road and when he reached in front of Kousthubham Auditorium, a car bearing No. KLH/1180 driven by the second respondent, came from the opposite direction rashly, and hit against the bicycle; as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. According to him, the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the second respondent. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent. The insurance policy is admitted. The point in dispute is only regarding the compensation payable. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 26,117/- as compensation under different heads. According to appellant, he was on leave for 64 days and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 6,930/- per month and therefore, compensation ought to have been given for loss MACA 2331/2007 2 of earning by awarding at least two months' salary. The Tribunal found that he was not on 'loss of pay', but he had availed leave with salary. However, an amount of Rs. 4,617/- was awarded. In the absence of any cogent evidence and sustainable ground to claim wages for the entire 64 days when he was admittedly drawing salary for the period as he was on leave with pay, we do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in fixing the compensation towards loss of earning at Rs. 4,617/-. 2. Towards compensation for loss of amenities, only a sum of Rs. 6,000/- is awarded. Ext.A8 is the disability certificate issued by Dr. R. Vijayakumar. Petitioner was hospitalised and underwent treatment. The nature of injuries sustained by him, namely, fracture radial head of right hand, pain and swelling right elbow, tenderness abrasion over both knee, multiple bodily injuries etc. are proved by Ext.A2 wound certificate. We find that an additional amount of Rs. 4,000/- is liable to be awarded under this head. 3. An amount of Rs. 4,000/- is awarded towards disability compensation. Ext.A8 is the disability certificate. But the doctor was not examined. However, it is an admitted fact that due to the disability, petitioner has not suffered any loss of earning. He would have, in the normal course, retired from service attaining the age of 60 and presuming MACA 2331/2007 3 that there might be some adverse consequences with regard to the probable loss of income in respect of the post retirement period, we find that an amount of Rs. 4,500/- more is awardable to the appellant. The compensation awarded under other heads is found to be reasonable and no interference is called for. In the result, we award the appellant/petitioner an additional compensation of Rs. 8,500/- (rounded to Rs. 9,000/-) which will carry interest at 7% from the date of petition till realisation, which shall be deposited by the Insurance Company immediately. The appeal is allowed in part. There will be no order as to costs. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-