~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P. (MV) No.519/2003, the petitioner before the Tribunal has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. 2. The appellant, who is a graduate Teacher at the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ernakulam, met with a road traffic accident. The accident is admitted. His case is that on 14.12.2002, he was hit from his back, while he was riding on his motor bike, by car bearing registration No.KL-09G-8196. He sustained multiple small abrasions left thumb outside and dorsum of hand, abrasion right elbow lateral part 3 x 3 cm, multiple abrasions right hand outer side, abrasion right knee lateral part 3 x 3 cm, 3 x 1.5 cm lacerated wound right forehead, lacerated wound upper lip 1.5 x 0.25 cm, an small lacerated wound right little toe. The appellant was admitted at the Amala Hospital, Thrissur on 14.12.2002 and he was discharged on 16.12.2002 as is evident by Ext.A6 discharge summary and Ext.A7 medical certificate.
3. According to the appellant, the appellant was on leave on medical grounds consequent to the accident, for 47 days and he could not attend duty. Ext.A7 medical certificate shows that he was strictly instructed by the Doctor to take complete rest for one month over and above the period undergone by him as inpatient at the hospital. The case of the appellant is that no amount has been granted by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings. It is the further case of the appellant that even though his motor cycle suffered serious damage, no amount has been granted by the Tribunal towards the head of damage to property. The reason stated by the Tribunal in disallowing the claim towards damage to property on account of the damage sustained to the motor bike is that the appellant has not proved that he is the registered owner of the motor bike. It seems that the learned Tribunal has lost sight of Ext.A13 registration particulars of the motor bike, which clearly reveal that the appellant is its registered owner. Ext.A9 bill from the workshop reveals that he had incurred an expense of ₹5,175/- towards repair works and maintenance of the motor bike on account of the accident.
4. The reason endorsed by the learned Tribunal for denying compensation towards loss of earnings is that the injury sustained by the appellant does not require that much absence from duty. It seems that he was on leave on account of strict medical advice as is evident from Ext.A7. Even though he was on leave for 47 days, the Doctor had advised to take rest for one month. Matters being so, this Court is of the view that he is entitled to get his income from salary for one month as compensation towards loss of earnings. Over and above it, he is entitled to get an amount of ₹5,175/- towards compensation for damage to property. Ext.A12 salary certificate shows that his monthly salary was ₹14,909/- during the period of accident. He is entitled to get compensation towards loss of earnings for one month. Matters being so, he is entitled to get an additional amount of ₹20,084/- towards compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal through the impugned award.
In the result, this Appeal is allowed to the extent as follows:-
The 3rd respondent insurer is directed to pay an amount of ₹20,084/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P.(MV) till the date of payment to the appellant herein, within a period of three months from today.
Sd/-(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/23/05 // True Copy // PA to Judge