IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 130 of 2008 ---------------------- OPMV.1469/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT: ------------------------ KURIAKOSE P.C. @ KURIANKUNJU C., S/O. CHERIYAN, AGED 51 YEARS, PARATHUMALIL HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. JOHN K.T., KAREETHARI HOUSE, KUMARUKAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. JAISON, S/O. VARGHESE, NILANTHANATH HOUSE, RAKKAD KARA,VALAKOM VILLAGE. 3. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KOLENCHERRY. 4. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY FOR R4 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 130 OF 2008 ============================ Dated this the 19th day of August 2011 JUDGMENT R.Basant, J. The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered in a motor accident which took place on 5/6/2001. He is an agriculturist. According to him, he was earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. He had suffered fracture of the upper end of both bones of the left leg. He underwent treatment. He was an inpatient for a period of ten days. According to him, he has suffered physical disability. The Medical Board assessed the disability at 12%. “Movements of his left knee decreased from 180° to 90°, flexion left ankle from 90° to 125° plantar flexion.”. The Tribunal did not accept the report of the Medical Board and came to the conclusion that only 8% can be reckoned as the disability. The Tribunal, accordingly, proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of a total amount of Rs.1,00,250/- as per the details given in paragraph 10 of the impugned award which we extract below: MACA 130/2008 2 sl.No. Head of claim amount awarded 1 Loss of income Rs.6,000/-(2000x3) 2 Transport expenses Rs.1,000/- 3 Damage to clothing Rs. 250/- 4 Attendance charges Rs. 1,000/- 5 Extra nourishment Rs. 750/- 6 Treatment expenses Rs.3.2,450/- 7 Pain and sufferings Rs.15,000/- 8 Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- 9 Disability Rs.28,800/- (2000x12x15x8/100) 10 Future treatment Total Rs. 5,000/- 1,00,250/- 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. The challenge is raised only on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum of compensation. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the monthly income of the appellant, a person aged 44 years in 2001 was reckoned at only Rs.2,000/- and this is grossly inadequate. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We take note MACA 130/2008 3 of the presumption of prudence under clause 6 of the 2nd Schedule which was enacted as early as in 1994. It permits the drawal of a presumption that Rs.1250/- per mensem can be reckoned as the earnings of even a non-earning person. We take note of the decision in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar [A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 3218] which stipulates Rs.3,000/- can be reckoned as monthly income of even for a non-earning home maker/housewife. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that Rs.3,000/- per mensem can safely be accepted as the income of the appellant. 4. Learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal erred in not accepting Ext.A7 disability certificate, which was further proved by the examination of PW1,Doctor. We note that Ext.A7 and the relevant details were proved satisfactorily by PW1. We are of the opinion that 12% as certified by the Medical Board can be accepted as the extent of physical disability as also the consequent reduction in earning capacity. We accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that an appropriate multiplier applicable to the claimant under MACA 130/2008 4 the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009)6 S.C.C.121] has to be accepted. 5. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs. 34,680/- in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal as per the details given below: 1 Loss of income Rs.3,000/-(Rs.3000x3 minus 6000) 2 Reduction in earning capacity/disability Rs.31,680/- (3000x12x14x12/100= 60480 minus 28800) Total Rs.34,680/- ============ 6. We are satisfied that no other direction of the Tribunal does warrant appellate interference. 7. In the result a)this appeal is allowed in part. b)The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.34,680/- (Rupees thirty four thousand six hundred and eighty only)in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. MACA 130/2008 5 c) We direct that interest be paid on the entire amount of compensation at the rate and for the period as specified by the Tribunal. d)All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE