IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943 MACA NO. 3031 OF 2014 AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 845/2012 OF III ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA",HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11.

BY ADVS.

SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

SUHARA PACKAYI W/O.LATE PACKAYI,NEERUNKAL HOUSE, RAJAGIRI.P.O,S.KALAMASSERY, PIN-683104.

BY ADVS.

SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.

SRI.J.VIVEK GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

T.R.RAVI, J.

--------------------------------------

M.A.C.A.No.3031 of 2014 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this th 10^th day of September, 2021

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the insurer who was the 3^rd respondent in OP(MV)No.845/2012 before the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondent while standing by the side of a road was hit by a car causing serious injuries. She preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal and by award dated 30.07.2014, the Tribunal ordered a compensation of Rs.4,65,948/- with interest at 9%. The first contention of the appellant/insurer is that the Tribunal has granted excessive amount under the head “pain and suffering” by granting Rs.50,000/-. Another contention is that amount has been granted for future treatment as Rs.20,000/-, even though the Tribunal had recorded a finding that there was no evidence available on record regarding the necessity for future treatment. The third contention is that after granting compensation under the head 'disability', no further amount could have been granted for compensation for “loss of earning power” going by the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Hariprasad reported in [2005 (4) KLT 977] Reference is also made to the decision in T.N.Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. S.Rajapriya & Ors. reported in [(2005) 6 SCC 236] to submit that the prevailing rate of interest should have been taken into account and only interest @ 7.5% ought to have been granted.

2. Heard Sri Mathew Jacob, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri Jacob Mathew on behalf of the appellant and Smt. K.N.Rajani on behalf of the respondent.

3. It can be seen that the respondent had suffered fracture of the 2^nd to 7^th ribs on the left side, trimalleolar fracture right with ankle subluxation, fracture superior and inferior pubic rami, fracture of olecranon right elbow, 3 part fractures of proximal humerus with severe communution, acetabulum fracture right anterior column plus anterior wall, lacerated wound on the right ankle, forehead and right elbow, punctured wound at the forehead, lacerated wound on the chin, abrasion on the face and extremities. The monthly income was fixed at Rs.4,000/- for the reason that the respondent was a house wife. Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, General Hospital, Ernakulam was relied on for ascertaining the permanent disability at 20%. I find that the compensation granted under the head disability is justified. The contention that loss of earning power should not have been treated as a separate head of compensation after having granted compensation under the head “disability” is justified and the award is liable to be interfered with on that count.

4. On the contention that excess amount has been granted towards “pain and suffering”, having regard to the nature of injuries and the fact that the respondent who is a home maker who had to be hospitalised from 26.1.2012 to 23.2.2012 and the fact that Rs.2,79,447.85 was spent towards medical expenses alone, I find that the amount granted by the Tribunal is reasonable and does not require any interference.

5. Regarding compensation