IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 233 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.1358/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- VAVACHAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, KOLLAPURACKAL VEEDU, C.M.C.III, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SARASAN SRI.M.V.BAIJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MANIYAN @ MANI, SHENINILAYAM, VAYALAR POST, CHERTHALA. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.233 of 2006-F ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The injured/claimant is the appellant. He suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 18/8/99. He claimed to be a salesman employed in a jewellery earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. He further claimed that he had suffered disability to the tune of 11%. In support of this assertion, Ext.A7 disability certificate was produced. The Doctor, who examined him and issued the certificate, was not examined. In support of his assertion that he is employed as salesman in a jewellery, no material whatsoever was produced, except his own statement. He had suffered fracture of the left humerus. He was an inpatient for a period of 6 days. According to him, POP cast was applied and he remained in M.A.C.A. No.233 of 2006 -: 2 :- plaster for three months. Treatment continued thereafter and he was allegedly undergoing physiotherapy for a further period of three months. In between, crepe bandage was applied for 45 days. 2. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.24,000/- as compensation and directed payment of the same along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The details of the amounts awarded are shown below: 1. Loss of earnings (5 x 2000) - Rs. 10,000.00 2. Transport to hospital - Rs. 500.00 3. Extra nourishment - Rs. 500.00 4. Pain and suffering - Rs. 6,000.00 5. Treatment expenses - Rs. 1,000.00 6. Compensation for physical disability (global) - Rs. 6,000.00 ---------------------- Total - Rs. 24,000.00 ========= 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount M.A.C.A. No.233 of 2006 -: 3 :- against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant, first of all, contends that the quantum of monthly income was not reckoned reasonably by the Tribunal. We find no merit in the contention. Rs.3,000/- per mensem was the salary claimed. No material whatsoever was produced. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, drew the presumption of prudence that the appellant as a salesman must have been earning, at least, an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem in 1999. We find no reason to interfere with that input taken into reckoning by the Tribunal. 4. The appellant had suffered fairly serious injuries - fracture of the mid-shaft of the humerus. For 6 days he was inpatient. No compensation was awarded for the expenses of a bystander. For miscellaneous expenses in connection with the treatment, we are satisfied that a further amount of Rs.1,000/- can be awarded. Only 5 months was reckoned by the Tribunal as the period of involuntary unemployment. In the nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone, we are satisfied that it can safely be reckoned that the appellant must have been involuntarily unemployed for a period of six months. For pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.6,000/- was awarded. Considering the nature of the fracture and the fact that the M.A.C.A. No.233 of 2006 -: 4 :- appellant must have been compelled to remain in plaster for a long period of time, we are persuaded to agree that an amount of Rs.7,500/- can be awarded under the head of pain and suffering. 5. Finally, it is contended that no just and reasonable compensation has been awarded under the head of disability. Only global amount of Rs.6,000/- has been awarded though a certificate was produced to suggest that the appellant had suffered disability to the tune of 11% (3 + 8). 6. There is absolutely no evidence to come to a conclusion that any appreciable disability has been suffered. It would be idle for the appellant to expect the court to swallow Ext.A7 certificate that has been issued. Though Ext.A7 certificate is reckoned by us as insufficient to come to a precise and authentic finding about the extent of disability, we are satisfied, in the totality of circumstances that some disability must have been suffered. We are unable to quantify the same authentically. The appellant will have to blame himself for not making better and more satisfactory data available to the Tribunal. This minimal physical disability may have a reflection on the earning capacity of the appellant as also in the quality of enjoyment of life hereafter. The appellant is a person aged about 50 years. It is, in these circumstances, that the Tribunal chose to award an M.A.C.A. No.233 of 2006 -: 5 :- amount of Rs.6,000/- as global amount of compensation under the head of disability. However, taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances, we are satisfied that the said global amount can be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. This we do, taking into account the nature of the injuries suffered as also the meagre indication about the disability gatherable from Ext.A7. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amount in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal: 1. Loss of earnings (6 x Rs.2,000/-) i.e., Rs.12,000/- minus Rs.10,000/- - Rs. 2,000.00 2. Bystander's expenses - Rs. 1,000.00 3. Pain and suffering (Rs.7,500/- minus Rs.6,000/-) - Rs. 1,500.00 4. Disability (global) (Rs.10,000/- minus Rs.6,000/-) - Rs. 4,000.00 ------------------ Total - Rs. 8,500.00 ======== 8. The appellant has a further grievance that interest has been awarded only at a painfully low rate of 6% per annum. Relying on the decision in Dharampal v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (2008 (2) KLT 691), the counsel prays and we accept that interest must have been awarded at least at the rate of 7.5% per annum. M.A.C.A. No.233 of 2006 -: 6 :- 9. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.8,500/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. (c) It is further directed that the entire amount of compensation shall bear interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition to the date of payment. All other directions issued by the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //True Copy// P.S. to Judge