IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1320 of 2004() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1282/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPPELLANT/PETITIONER : ---------------------------------------- KANNAN.V., S/O.VAMADEVAN, SREEMANDIRAM (KOCHUVADAKKE VEEDU), KOMANA BHAGOM, AMBALAPUZHA P.O., AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. J.NAZAR, KARIPPAVELIYIL HOUSE, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DT. 2. THE PROPRIETOR, M/S.SHRIMPAX INTERNATIONAL, CCX VI-1342, KOCHUPALLI ROAD, COCHIN. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., ERNAKULAM BRANCH, COCHI. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1320 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT R. BASANT,J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 11.12.1997. Against a total claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation as per the details given below: Head Amount awarded Loss of earning Rs.14,000/- Treatment and medicine Rs.10,000/- Transportation,bystander and other expenses Rs.4,000/- Permanent disability and loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- Loss of earning power Rs.10,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.8,000/- Cosmetic disfiguration Rs.4,000/- Total 1,00,000/- ========= M.A.C.A. No.1320 of 2004 2 The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on various heads. Inadequacy of the quantum of compensation is the only plank of challenge. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance company, who has been made entirely liable to satisfy the decree. 3. First of all, it is contended that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal to ascertain the quantum of loss of earnings as also the loss of earning capacity is not correct. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the oral and documentary evidence produced to urge that the appellant was actually having a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. The Tribunal was not persuaded by the oral and documentary evidence to accept that assertion of the appellant. The Tribunal reckoned only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income. The appellant was employed as a cleaner in a vehicle at the relevant time. An amount of Rs.14,000/- has been awarded as compensation for M.A.C.A. No.1320 of 2004 3 loss of earnings, the Tribunal has awarded this amount accepting that the appellant must have been involuntarily unemployed for a period of 8 months. We are satisfied that the monthly income can safely be reckoned at Rs.2,000/-. Under the head of loss of earnings a proportionately higher amount would be payable. 5. The Tribunal accepted that the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20%. Notwithstanding a higher percentage certified by the doctor the Tribunal accepted the extent of disability only at 20%. On the materials available, we find no reason to disagree with that conclusion of the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not proceed to assess reduction in earning capacity by employing the multiplier multiplicand method. A total amount of Rs.64,000/- has been awarded under three different heads encompassing permanent disability, loss of amenities, loss of earning power and cosmetic disfiguration. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in not adopting the multiplier multiplicand method to ascertain the quantum of compensation. M.A.C.A. No.1320 of 2004 4 6. We find merit in that contention. 20% disability has been accepted by the Tribunal. In the absence of any better evidence, we are satisfied that 20% can be reckoned to be the extent of reduction in earning capacity also. The appellant was a 20 year old young bachelor at the time of the accident. While Rs.2,000/- can safely be accepted as the probable monthly income while ascertaining the multiplicand we are of the opinion that due provisions for future improvement in prospects will also have to be taken into consideration. We are in these circumstances, satisfied 3,000/- can safely be reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining the quantum of compensation for reduction in earning capacity. In addition to the amount payable under the head of reduction in earning capacity the appellant is further entitled for compensation for loss of amenities. Physical disability suffered by a person has two fold reflections in his life. It reduces the earning capacity, it also impairs and reduces the quality of enjoyment of life. In this case the appellant was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident. He was a bachelor. The disability suffered will have manifold impact on his M.A.C.A. No.1320 of 2004 5 life after the accident. It reduces the ability to enjoy life. His marital prospects are affected. His life expectancy can also safely be assumed to have been affected. He will have to endure the disabilities, inconvenience and discomfiture for the rest of his life. Cosmetic disfiguration has also taken place. Taking all these into account we are satisfied that the appropriate global amount must have been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that even though the appellant had continued as an inpatient for a period about 32 days and notwithstanding the fact that he was forced to undergo serious surgical procedures, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. We are satisfied that the said amount can be enhanced. 8. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the following further amounts as compensation in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A. No.1320 of 2004 6 Loss of earnings: : Rs. 2,000/- (8X2000 minus 14000) Pain and suffering : Rs.7,000/- (15,000 minus 8000) Compensation of reduction in earning capacity (3000X12X18X20/100= : Rs. 69,600/- 129,600 minus 60,000) (ie 50,000+ 10,000) Loss of amenities, all dimensions including cosmetics disfiguration : Rs.26,000/- (30,000 minus 4000) ------------------- Total Rs. 1,04,600/- ========== 9. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. We are satisfied that a higher rate of interest deserves to be granted. We direct that the interest will be paid at 7.5 % per annum on the entire amount of compensation. 10. In the result: a. This appeal is allowed in part. M.A.C.A. No.1320 of 2004 7 b. The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,04,600/-(Rupees one Lakh four thousand and six hundred only) as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c. We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition to the date of payment/realisation. c. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE ln