Kamalamma v. The Managing Director, KSRTC Central Works, Thiruvananthapuram and Balachandran

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 5TH KARTHIKA,** **1943** **MACA NO. 549 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 826/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS** **CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA** ## **APPELLANT : APPLICANT :** **KAMALAMMA, W/O.CHRISTUDAS, KARAKATTU ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, EERATTINPURAM, VELIYANKODE P.O.** **BY ADVS. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.** ## **- - RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS :** 1 **THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL WORKS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** 2 **BALACHANDRAN,** **KUTTIKADUPUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAVAM-DESOM, EDEVAM-VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA BY SRI.ALEX ANTONY, STANDING COUNSEL, KSRTC** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.No.549 of 2011 ..2.. ## **M.A.C.A.No.549 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.826 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, has preferred this appeal, being aggrieved by the award dated 03.09.2004 whereby the Tribunal granted Rs,22,250/- as compensation under various heads as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- According to the petitioner/appellant, on 30.10.2000, while she was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.KLX-5997 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, she sustained injuries when the bus met with an accident and she underwent treatment. M.A.C.A.No.549 of 2011 ..3.. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a joined written statement and disputed the accident as well as the negligence. Claims under various heads are also opposed. The Tribunal examined PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A16 series. Thereafter, Rs,22,250/- is granted by the Tribunal as compensation on appraisal of the evidence including the injuries sustained at the time of accident. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal to grant loss of earnings is on lower side in a case where the appellant claimed Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income being a vegetable seller. According to the learned counsel, Rs.3,000/- as such should have been taken by the Tribunal. He also canvassed increase in loss of earnings considering the treatment of the appellant for a period of about one month. 6. The learned counsel for the KSRTC opposed M.A.C.A.No.549 of 2011 ..4.. the contention. However, it appears that the decision reported in [(2011) 13 SCC 236], **Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,** the Honourable Supreme Court fixed the monthly income of a coolie at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month. Applying the same ratio, it can be held that during the year 2010, the monthly income of a coolie can be Rs.2,500/-. Therefore, the monthly income for calculating loss of earnings is reassessed as Rs.2,500/-. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled to get loss of earnings in excess of two months, is also required to be addressed by referring the injuries sustained as could be read out from Ext.A7 treatment certificate. A bare perusal of Ext.A7 would go to show that the appellant sustained contusion on the lower Jaw, pain both sides of the scalp and chest, and decreased vision of both eyes. The further recitals in Ext.A7 would show that the appellant was given advise to have M.A.C.A.No.549 of 2011 ..5.. consultation at Dental College, Thiruvananthapuram and Ophthalmological consultation at Ophthalmologic Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Going by the treatment records produced as Exts.A8 toA14, nothing could be gathered to find any sort of infirmity to the vision as clinically observe in Ext.A7. It is true that the four teeth of the appellant were removed on 16.04.2001 due to secondary infection in consequence of the accident. Though the decreased vision and other infirmities not convincingly established in the case, removal of four teeth is evident from Ext.A13. Therefore, I am of the view that the loss of earnings granted by the Tribunal can be increased for four months at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. In fact, Rs.4,000/- was granted by the Tribunal and the remaining to the tune of **Rs.6,000/-** more is granted under this head. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal granted Rs.8,000/- alone towards loss of four teeth, though the appellant who was aged 28 M.A.C.A.No.549 of 2011 ..6.. years, was forced to remove four teeth at her tender age as an outcome of the accident. Thus, more amount under the head loss of amenities is pressed into by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents disputed the same. However, I am of the view that some more increase can be granted considering the removal of four teeth led to the deficiency caused in the matter of enjoyment of life by the appellant. Therefore, I am inclined to grant **Rs.10,000/-** more under this head than what has been granted by the Tribunal. 8. Another point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant produced medical bills for Rs.20,348/- and Rs.343/-(Rs.20,691/-), the Tribunal granted only Rs.1,000/- on the finding that the medical bills produced as Exts.A15 and A16 could not be considered since the said medical expenses pertaining to treatment at Chythanya Ayurvedic Centre, Kovalam and Aswathy Clinic, M.A.C.A.No.549 of 2011 ..7.. Neyyattinkara not substantiated with aid of medical records. Though the learned counsel for the appellant argued at length to convince that the treatment led to medical expenses to the tune of Rs.20,691/- was in consequence of the accidental injuries, the available records do not justify the said contention. I am of the view that the Tribunal could not be faulted in the matter of rejecting the medical bills which had no nexus with the nature of injuries and treatment underwent by the appellant as a result of the accident. Going by the records, the appellant found to have gone for some consultation to rule out the possibility of decreased vision, though the result of the examination not produced either before the Tribunal or before this Court, may be due to negative finding considering the contention as discussed. In view of the matter, I am inclined to grant **Rs.5,000/-** more under the head medical expenses. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. It is ordered that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced M.A.C.A.No.549 of 2011 ..8.. compensation to the tune of **Rs.21,000/-** (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand only) at the rate of 9% interest granted by the Tribunal excluding the amount already granted by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realisation. The insurance company is directed to deposit the same in the name of the appellant within two months from today and on deposit, the appellant is at liberty to to release the same. Sd/- **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj