IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1750 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.1880/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- ABEEDA BEEVI, PARATHITTATHEKKATHIL HOUSE ERAVICHIRA, SOORANAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------- 1. SELVIN.J. PUTHIYEDAM, PUTHIYEDAM HOUSE, POTTA. 2. SALI.P.J. PARIDHA HOUSE, KORATTI. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY, IRINJALAKUDA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO R3 BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 1750 OF 2005 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. She along with her husband had suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 24.05.96. Husband succumbed to his injuries. She is a housewife. It is claimed that she used to help her husband in copra business and was earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per month from such activity. An amount of Rs.4 lakhs is claimed as compensation. She had suffered fracture of lateral wall of the left orbit and also other external injuries. She was an in-patient at the Medical College hospital for a period of 7 days. She allegedly had suffered permanent disability. A doctor who was examined, though he did not issue any certificate, stated that the physical disability can be assessed at more than 10%. 2. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the available inputs, awarded an amount of Rs.55,000/- as compensation as per the details shown below: MACA: 1750/2005 -:2:- 1. Pain and suffering :Rs. 12,000/- 2. Loss of earning : 4,500/-(1,500 X 3) 3. Compensation for disability : 22,680/- (1,500 x 12x18x7/100) 4. Bystander's expenses : 3,000/- 5. Medical expenses : 10,500/- 6. Transportation to hospital : 3,000/- ------------------- Total : Rs.54,680/- (Rounded off as Rs.55,000/-) =========== 3. The amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance ? Counsel explains first of all that, the Tribunal had erroneously reduced the disability from 10% to 7% while considering the compensation payable for reduction and earning capacity by resorting to the multiplier-multiplicand method. The monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal is not sufficient and reasonable. It is finally contended that the amount awarded under the head of expenses for transportation - Rs.3,000/-, is inadequate. Counsel further contends that though it was found that the appellant had suffered physical disability, no amount has been awarded for the loss of MACA: 1750/2005 -:3:- amenities. Physical disability has two pronged reflections on an individual. It reduces the earning capacity. It also reduces the quality of enjoyment of life. Compensation must justly be granted for both reflections - i.e., of reduction in earning capacity and loss of enjoyment of life. In the instant case, compensation has been awarded only for the reduction in earning capacity. Quality of enjoyment of life has been totally ignored by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We do not find any necessity to interfere with the presumption of prudence shown by the Tribunal in fixing the notional income at Rs.1,500/- per mensem. There is nothing to show the employment or income of the appellant. In these circumstances, in reckoning the monthly income at Rs.1,500/- drawing the presumption of prudence, the Tribunal, according to us, has committed no error warranting interference by this Court. Reduction in earning capacity was reckoned only at 7%. Considering the nature of alleged disability by the injury suffered on the face/head and considering allegations of headache, we are unable to find anything which can have any MACA: 1750/2005 -:4:- reflection on the earning capacity to the appellant assuming her to be employed rendering assistance to her husband in the conduct of his business. The Tribunal, according to us, did not commit any error in reckoning the reduction in the earning capacity at 7% only. That finding does not warrant any interference. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal had granted only a meagre sum for transportation expenses. She was an inpatient for a period of 7 days. She continued her treatment thereafter. In any view of the matter, the award of an amount of Rs.3,000/- for transportation expenses does not appeal to us as warranting any interference. 6. We do find merit in the contention of the appellant that, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss suffered by the appellant, a young woman aged 28 years at the time of accident, in terms of loss of amenities and in terms of reduction in the quality of enjoyment of her life. We are satisfied that the appellant, considering her age and nature of the disability suffered, can safely be paid a further amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities. This appeal can succeed only MACA: 1750/2005 -:5:- to the above extent. We are satisfied that no other reason exists to interfere with the impugned award. 7. The appellant will consequently be entitled to a further sum of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest from the date of the petition to the date of payment at the rate directed by the Tribunal. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. R. BASANT, JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE ttb MACA: 1750/2005 -:6:- MACA: 1750/2005 -:7:-