Saramma vs Meena Alex

B. Kemal Pasha, J.—Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV) No. 325/2000, the petitioner before the Tribunal has come up in appeal.

The appellant, a woman aged 45, suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 28.10.1999. She had undergone treatment at the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam for the period from 28.10.1999 to 30.10.1999 as inpatient. Ext.A2 is the wound certificate which shows that she had sustained pain on the right shoulder and pain lower back. Ext.A3 is the discharge summary indicating that the petitioner has suffered contusion lower back and chest. The petitioner has produced Ext.A5 certificate issued by Physiatrist and Assistant Surgeon of Government Hospital, Ernakulam issued on 02.06.2004 whereby he assessed a disability of 15%.

The Tribunal has not accepted Ext.A5 medical certificate. The Tribunal has granted an amount of 7,200/- as compensation, which according to the appellant is too low.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It seems that the Tribunal has rightly chosen not to accept Ext.A5. There were no supporting documents for the concerned doctor to issue Ext.A5 to find any ligament fracture. Matters being so, the appellant is not entitled to get any compensation under the head of permanent disability.

The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the petitioner was a daily labourer and she was aged 45. The Tribunal has granted an amount of 400/- only towards loss of earnings. Compared to the period undergone by the appellant as inpatient in the hospital, the Tribunal ought to have granted at least one month''s income towards loss of earnings. An amount of 3,000/- per month could have been taken as the income. Matters being so, the appellant is entitled to get an amount of 2,600/- as additional compensation under that head. It seems that for pain and sufferings the Tribunal has granted an amount of 3,000/- only. In a case like this, the Tribunal ought to have granted an amount of 5,000/-. Towards bystander''s expenses, no amount has been granted. The Tribunal ought to have granted an amount of 600/- under that head. It seems that towards damages to clothing and medicines nothing has been granted. A consolidated amount of 500/- ought to have been granted under that head. Regarding compensation granted by the Tribunal under other heads, this Court is of the view that the same do not call for any interference at all. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get an amount of 5,700/- as additional compensation over and above the amount fixed by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

In the result, the M.A.C.A. is allowed in part and an amount of 5,700/- more is allowed as enhanced compensation to the appellant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. In computing the interest, a period of 108 days, being the delay caused in filing the present appeal, has to be deducted.