SHIBU v. MINI PLILIP,PALETTU HOUSE

R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2012, ALONG WITH MACA. 325/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ----------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO.2661 OF 2010 & M.A.C.A.NO.325 OF 2011 ----------------------------- DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012 JUDGMENT Claimants are the appellants in both these appeals. They are husband and wife. The appeals are directed against the common award passed in O.P.(MV).Nos.829 and 833/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The Tribunal partly allowed O.P. (MV)No.829/2008 granting a consolidated amount of `14,000/- with interest as compensation. O.P.(MV).No.833/2008 was also partly allowed granting compensation of `46,600/- with interest. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and respondents as arrayed in the respective original petitions.

2. The claims for compensation arose out of the same accident. The Tribunal jointly tried three original petitions and passed a common award. Therefore, both these appeals were taken up together for hearing and were disposed of by a common judgment. M.A.C.A.Nos.2661/2010 & 325/2011 -2-

3. The claimants sustained injuries in the road traffic accident on 1-2-2008. The claimants were travelling in a Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KL-5/5174 from Athirampuzha Church to Kuruppamthara in east to west. When they reached the place of accident, another Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KL-3/M 2665 driven by the lst respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the car in which the claimants were travelling, and the claimants sustained injuries.

4. Claimants produced Exts.A1 to A15. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, who is the lst respondent in the claim petitions. Ext.A3 is the accident register- cum-would certificate, which indicates that the petitioner in O.P. (MV).No.829/2008 sustained injuries and immediately after the accident, he was admitted in the Matha Hospital, Thellakom. Ext.A7 is the medical bills, the receipts of which would show that he had spent a sum of `8,360/-. The claimant is aged 31 years and he is working as Computer Operator in U.K. The Tribunal M.A.C.A.Nos.2661/2010 & 325/2011 -3- awarded a consolidated amount of `14,000/- as compensation including the amount of `8,360/- spent fort the treatment. Considering the facts and circumstances noted above, the fact that he is working in UK as a Computer Operator and that the husband and wife could not leave the country for 1 ½ months, I am of the view that the consolidated amount of `14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is not fair and adequate. Therefore, the consolidated amount `14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is re-fixed as `25,000/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to additional compensation of `11,000/-.

5. Ext.A9 is the accident register-cum-would certificate issued in the name of the petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.833/2008. She was admitted in Matha Hospistal, Thellakom immediately after the accident. Ext.A10 certificate would show that she was also admitted on 1-2-2008, that one surgical reduction was done, that she was discharged on 4/2/2008 and that the arch bar removed on 6/3/2008. The petitioner is aged 30 years and she is working as a M.A.C.A.Nos.2661/2010 & 325/2011 -4- Nurse in U.K. The petitioner also produced Ext.A12 salary bill. It is pleaded that she is earning a monthly salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The petitioner contended that she requires at least 1 ½ months' rest to recover from the injuries sustained to her in the accident. Finding that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that she sustained loss of salary, the court below awarded `4,500/- as compensation for loss of earnings for 1 ½ months. Ext.A11 is the medical bills. The petitioner spent `19,589/- for treatment. She was treated as inpatient for four days. Arch bar is removed after 35 days. The Tribunal awarded `46,600/- as the compensation, which includes `19,600/- spent for the treatment.

6. The petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.829/2008 claimed Rs.70,000/- and the petitioner in O.P.(MV).No.833/2008 claimed `1,00,000/-. The husband and wife are working as a Computer Operator and Nurse respectively in U.K. It is contended that due to the accident the claimants have to extend their leave for 1 ½ M.A.C.A.Nos.2661/2010 & 325/2011 -5- months without salary.

7. The claimant in O.P.(MV).No.833/2008 was treated as inpatient from 1/2/2008 till 4/2/2008, surgical reduction was done and the arch bar was removed on 6/3/2008. Ext.A10 certificate indicates the said facts. Ext.A9 is an accident register- cum-wound certificate, which indicates that the petitioner sustained haematoma cheek and upper lip and fracture maxilla (L). She is aged 30 years and is a Nurse working in U.K. The Tribunal granted an amount of of `4,500/- as the loss of earnings for 1 ½ months, after accepting the contention that she requires at least 1 ½ months' rest to recover from the injuries sustained to her in the accident. It is true that there is no satisfactory proof regarding the loss of earnings sustained by the claimant. The claimant should have produced document to prove that she was compelled to remain in Kerala till the arch bar was removed on 6/3/2008. No satisfactory proof is produced to support her case that there is loss of earnings for 1 ½ months. At the same time, the amount of `4,500/- awarded as the loss of earnings for 1 ½ months is not just M.A.C.A.Nos.2661/2010 & 325/2011 -6- and adequate. It is not disputed that the claimant is working as a Nurse in U.K. In these circumstances, on a moderate estimate an amount of `30,000/- should have been awarded, in the absence of the satisfactory proof for the loss of earnings for 1 ½ months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of `25,500/- (30000 - 4500) as the loss of earnings for 1 ½ months. Under Part II the Tribunal awarded `12,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. On a moderate estimate, this Court is the view that `15,000/- can be awarded under this head. The compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life the amount of `6,000/- awarded is very low. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head is re-fixed as `10,000/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of `3,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering' and `4,000/- under the head 'loss of amenities and enjoyment of life' respectively. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to a total additional compensation of `32,500/-. M.A.C.A.Nos.2661/2010 & 325/2011 -7- The appeals are partly allowed. The awards under challenge are modified. The petitioner in O.P.(MV) is entitled to additional compensation of `11,000/- with the same rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal and the petitioner in O.P.(MV). No.833/2008 is entitled to additional compensation of `32,500/- with the same rate of interest awarded. In all other respects, the award passed by the Tribunal shall stand. No order as to costs. kcv. Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.