IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 1297 of 2008(E) ----------------------- OPMV.129/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER ---------------------------------- SUMESH, S/O.MOHANAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, ANAKKALLU DESOM, PALISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. RENSON, S/O.LAZER, MANJALY HOUSE, KALLOOR POST, ALAGAPPA NAGAR, AMBALLOOR. 2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHALAKUDY. ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL FOR R1 SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ************************* M.A.C.A No.1297 of 2008 ****************************** Dated this the 21st day of January 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Injured claimant is the appellant. He claims to be aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded for the loss suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 06.05.2002. He claims to be a goldsmith, aged about 20 years. He was an inpatient for 12 days in a hospital. He had suffered multiple injuries. His right knee was injured. Tendon injury was suffered. According to him he has suffered permanent disability as a result of the accident. He produced Ext.A8 disability certificate to confirm that he has suffered permanent physical disability to the tune of 13%. The author of Ext.A8 was not of course examined. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs proceeded to award an amount of Rs.49,350/- as compensation as per the details given below. i) Loss of earning (2000 X 3) : Rs. 6,000/- ii) Expenses for transportation : Rs. 500/- iii) Expense for extra nourishment : Rs. 500/- iv) Damages to clothing : Rs. 500/- v) Expense for treatment : Rs.21,850/- vi) Expense for bystander : Rs. 1,000/- M.A.C.A No.1297 of 2008 2 vii) Compensation for pain and suffering : Rs. 8,000/- viii) Compensation for loss of amenities : Rs. 6,000/- ix) Compensation for discomfiture : Rs. 5,000/- .................... Total : Rs.49,350/- .................... 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is his grievance? Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant raises various grounds. 3. First of all it is contended that the monthly income of the appellant reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per mensem is too inadequate. Even the F.I statement shows that the appellant is a goldsmith. Reasonable inferences about the monthly income should have been drawn. Second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, which permits drawal of a presumption of prudence that even a non earning person can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.1,250/- in 1994 must have been borne in mind by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, at any rate, reckoning the monthly earning at Rs.2,000/- is not correct, argues the counsel. We find merit in that contention. The M.A.C.A No.1297 of 2008 3 accident took place on 06.05.2002. We agree that it would safe to assume that the monthly income of the appellant was Rs.3,000/- at the relevant time. In the totality of circumstances, that inference of prudence appears to be absolutely reasonable to us. 4. The counsel then contends that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of reduction in earning capacity. The Tribunal did not accept or act upon Ext.A8 disability certificate. The learned counsel contends that even if the Tribunal did not accept Ext.A8 as a gospel truth, it must have been held to be sufficient to conclude that the appellant had suffered some permanent physical disability. All the relevant details have been given in Ext.A8. Ext.A8 is perfectly in tandem with the other medical documents like Ext.A4 wound certificate, Ext.A5 discharge certificate and Ext.A6 discharge summary. The relevant details about the tendon injury suffered by the appellant are narrated in Ext.A8. Complete rupture of right patellar tendon is indicated. There was rupture of the right quadriceps tendon also. If the Tribunal were not satisfied that Ext.A8 certificate can be accepted, the Tribunal should in fairness have called upon the appellant to adduce evidence to prove Ext.A8. Rejection and complete disregard of Ext.A8 is at any rate unjustified, argues counsel. M.A.C.A No.1297 of 2008 4 5. We find force in that contention. A careful perusal of Ext.A8 definitely suggests that Ext.A8 which is in conformity with the other medical documents produced should not have been ignored altogether. The Tribunal should have call for evidence to prove Ext.A8. If not, the tribunal should have referred the appellant to a medical board or medical officer for competent assessment of the extent of physical disability. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the tribunal erred in ignoring Ext.A8 altogether. 6. Even assuming that the data furnished in Ext.A8 about the extent of permanent physical disability can be accepted, it has got to be borne in mind that what the courts are concerned while ascertaining loss of earning capacity is not strictly the extent of physical disability; but the impact of such alleged physical disability on the earning capacity of the claimant. So reckoned, we take note of the details in Ext.A8, we take note of the statement of the appellant even in Ext.A1 F.I.S that he is a Goldsmith. We are satisfied that 6% can safely be reckoned as the extent of reduction in earning capacity consequent to the alleged disability indicated in Ext.A8. The multiplier- multiplicand method has to be adopted to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable under the head of reduction in earning M.A.C.A No.1297 of 2008 5 capacity. The appellant is shown to be a person aged 20 years on the date of the accident. The multiplier as per the second schedule to the M.V.Act is 16. The same can be accepted. 7. Physical disability suffered by a person has two pronged reflections on the life of an individual. In addition to reduction in earning capacity it causes impairment in the quality of life of the victim. Under heads 8 and 9 referred above, a total amount of Rs.11,000/- has already been awarded by the tribunal for loss of amenities and discomfiture and in these circumstances we are satisfied that no further amount is liable to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the following further amounts by way of compensation in addition to the amounts awarded by the tribunal. 1. Loss of earnings = Rs.3,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 3 = Rs.9,000/- minus Rs.6,000/-) 2. Reduction in earning capacity = Rs.34,560/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 16 x 6/100) Total = Rs.37,560/- 9. In the result, a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part. M.A.C.A No.1297 of 2008 6 b) In addition to the amounts awarded by the tribunal, the appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.37,560/- (Rupees thirty seven thousand five hundred and sixty only) as per the details shown above. c) Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest from the date of the petition to the date of payment at the rates awarded by the tribunal. d) All other directions of the tribunal are upheld. The tribunal shall issue fresh directions regarding deposit/release. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-