M T BIJU Vs. T C NOUFAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant is the Appellant. He claimed an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 20.10.2006. He had suffered undisplaced fracture of the head of right radius. An outpatient ticket and wound certificate were produced to prove the nature of injuries. There is nothing to indicate that the Appellant was admitted as an inpatient. He had not suffered any permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 18,100/- as compensation as per the details shown below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_165_LAWS(KER)8_20111.htm</FRM>

(2.) The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to be specific, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the compensation for the loss of earning awarded (Rs. 3,000/-) is too inadequate. Similarly it is further contended that the treatment expenses awarded and the compensation for pain and suffering fixed by the Tribunal are all grossly inadequate.

(3.) We have considered all the relevant inputs. Undisplaced fracture of the head of the right radius is the only injury suffered. There is nothing to show that the Appellant was even admitted as an inpatient. The O.P tickets produced suggest that he was treated as an outpatient. At any rate, there is nothing to show that he was treated as an inpatient as a result of the injuries. For pain and suffering an amount of Rs. 12,000/- has been awarded. In addition, a further amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. Viewed from any angle, we are not persuaded to agree that the impugned award warrants interference by invoking our appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.