IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2913 of 2009()
1. P.V.KRISHNANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VIJAYAKRISHNAN,6508(13/332),
... Respondent
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.OMANAKUTTAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :22/01/2010
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.T. No.2913 of 2009-C
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The claimant is the appellant. He suffered injuries in a
motor accident which took place on 5/10/04. He is aged 59
years. Fracture of shaft of tibia and fibula and fracture of 5th
and 6th ribs are the injuries noted. It is said that he was an
inpatient; but no material whatsoever was placed before court
to prove the period of treatment as an inpatient. There was no
evidence other than Ext.A2 wound certificate and Ext.A6 X-ray
produced which has a direct reflection on the question of
quantum. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, proceeded to
pass the impugned award directing payment of an amount of
Rs.40,000/- as compensation with interest and costs as per the
details shown below:
“Hospitalisation, transportation,
attendants expenses etc. – Rs. 1,000/-
Loss of earnings - Rs. 9,000/-
M.A.C.T. No.2913 of 2009 -: 2 :-
Pain and suffering - Rs.18,000/-
For discomfort & inconvenience - Rs.12,000/-
-----------------
Total - Rs.40,000/-
=======
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
quantum of compensation awarded is too low. Called upon to
explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to
mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the
appellant argues that the amounts awarded under all heads are
inadequate, unreasonable and unjust.
3. We are unable to agree. On the materials available, we
note that there is nothing to show that he was hospitalised even.
The period of hospitalisation cannot be ascertained. Monthly
income has been reckoned by the Tribunal even in the absence
of any better evidence as Rs.3,000/-. Even in the wake of the
appellant not furnishing any evidence about the period of
treatment, the Tribunal assumed that three months involuntary
non-employment must have taken place. For pain and suffering,
the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.18,000/-. The Tribunal
evidently took note of the fracture of tibia and fibula and
fracture of 5th and 6th ribs while awarding this amount of
compensation for pain and suffering. We feel that the Tribunal
evidently felt that adequate material has not been placed before
it and, in these circumstances, notwithstanding the failure/
M.A.C.T. No.2913 of 2009 -: 3 :-
omission of the claimant to place any better material before
court, the Tribunal just assumed that Rs.12,000/- can be paid for
discomfort and inconvenience in addition to an amount of
Rs.1,000/- for hospitalisation, transportation etc. In any view of
the matter, we are unable to agree that on the materials placed
before the Tribunal, the award can be said to be defective or
unreasonable in any manner. We do see that the Tribunal has
obviously erred on the side of the claimant to award an amount
of Rs.40,000/- as compensation even in the absence of adequate
material. We are not persuaded to agree that the appellate
jurisdiction deserves to be invoked to interfere with the
impugned award. Even before the appellate court, it is
significant that no material has been produced and no contention
has been raised that adequate material could not be placed
before the Tribunal for any perceivable reason.
4. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in
limine.
Sd/-
R. BASANT
(Judge)
Sd/-
M.C. HARI RANI
(Judge)
Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge
M.A.C.T. No.2913 of 2009 -: 4 :-