IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1512 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1629/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- BABY PRIYA, AGED 23 YEARS, PADMALAYAM, MANIYARA, P.O.KANAYI, VIA. M.M.BAZAR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.2: ----------------------------------------------------------- M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KANNUR DIVISION, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1512 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. The claimant was a girl aged 15 years on the date of the accident that is 15/5/1996. She claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- through her guardian as compensation. She was a student aged 16 years at the relevant time. She suffered fracture of the right clavicle, fracture of the three ribs, fracture of the right tibia and brain injury as a result of the accident. She was an in-patient for a period of 36 days. The injuries and the consequent treatment allegedly adversely affected her educational progress. 2. The tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.68,900/- as per the details shown below. Transport to hospital Rs.1,500/- Medical expenses Rs.37,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.17,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.8,000/- Expenses for bystanders expenses Rs.5,400/- Total Rs.68,900/- M.A.C.A.No.1512/04 2 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on the following grounds. 4. First of all it is contended that compensation for pain and suffering is totally insufficient and unsatisfactory. Only an amount of Rs.17,000/- has been awarded. Claimant was a child aged 15 years at the relevant time. She has suffered very serious injuries including multiple fractures and head injuries. She was an in- patient for 36 days. She had continued her treatment as out-patient for a number of days. We are, in these circumstances, persuaded to agree that an amount of Rs.25,000/- must have been awarded as compensation under the head pain and suffering. The appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.8,000/- under this head. The injuries suffered compelled the appellant to keep away from school during the period of hospitalisation and thereafter. Of course, it is true that specific evidence has not been produced to show the period of interruption of the educational curriculum and break, if any, in the academic progress. But, all the same, it appears to be absolutely safe to infer and assume that such consequence must have ensued following the accident and the injuries suffered. We M.A.C.A.No.1512/04 3 are certainly of the opinion that the non-award of any amount under the head loss of studies/retardation in the educational career is not justified. We are satisfied, considering the totality of circumstances that an amount of Rs.7,500/- can be awarded under this head. 5. The appellant was an in-patient for a period of 36 days. She produced bills for medical treatment which were accepted by the tribunal. The tribunal rejected the claim in so far as it relates to bills for payment of amounts to the doctors. Hospitals give in- patient bills; but for the fees paid to freelance doctors who come to hospitals and treat patients, hospitals were not able to give authenticated bills sufficient for the satisfaction of the court. In a letter head of the hospital, amounts paid to doctors were shown. Such amounts were also claimed along with expenses for in-patient at the hospital. The tribunal, taking note of the facts that these certificates/bills are not duly authenticated, turned down the claim for Rs.9,050/- on that ground. The counsel for the appellant contends that the rejection of the claim for the sole reason that the bills were not authenticated or signed by the doctors cannot lead a prudent mind to the ready and instant inference that no such payment would have been made at all. We are, at any rate, satisfied from the materials available on record in this case that an amount of Rs.7,500/- more can be awarded under the head of medical M.A.C.A.No.1512/04 4 expenses to take care of payments made to the doctors who had attended on the appellant. 6. For extra nourishment, no amount has been awarded. Canteen bills produced show that an amount of Rs.6,740/- was expended on bills for food from canteen. Part of it was given credit in the bystander's expenditure already awarded at Rs.150/- per day. But those bills, we can safely assume, include expenses for extra nourishment of the injured during the period of hospitalisation. For such extra nourishment, while in the hospital and thereafter, we are satisfied that a total amount of Rs.3,500/- can safely be awarded. 7. There is nothing to prove disability though it is asserted that the accident had resulted in disability including loss of memory for the claimant. An amount of Rs.8,000/- has been awarded considering the nature of injuries and the possible impact of such injuries in later life. We are satisfied that a further amount of Rs.7,000/- that is a total amount of Rs.15,000/- can safely be awarded under this head. We are not satisfied that the amounts awarded under any other head warrant interference. 8. It follows from the above discussions that the appellant is entitled for a total further amount of Rs.33,500/- as per the details shown below. M.A.C.A.No.1512/04 5 Pain and suffering Rs.8,000/- (Rs.25,000/- minus Rs.17,000/-) Retardation in educational Rs.7,500/- progress (no amount awarded) Medical expenses incurred Rs.7,500/- (Rs.44,500/- minus Rs.37,000/-) Extra nourishment Rs.3,500/- (no amount awarded) Loss of amenities Rs.7,000/- (Rs.15,000/- minus Rs.8,000/-) Total Rs.33,500/- 9. The appellant shall, thus, be entitled for a further amount of Rs.33,500/- (Rupees thirty three thousand and five hundred only), in addition to the amounts already awarded. Interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. We agree that interest shall be payable @ 7.5% per annum from 31/12/2001. The interest shall be payable on the entire amount of compensation as directed by the tribunal till 31/12/2001 and thereafter @ 7.5% per annum. 10. This appeal is thus allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.1512/04 6 M.A.C.A.No.1512/04 7 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009