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. 1936 of 2006(C) ----------------------- AWARD DATED 24.02.2006 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI IN O.P.(MV) NO.1228/02 APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ MUHAMMED ASHRAF K.C., AGED 26 YEARS, SON OF MUHAMMED MUSLIYAR, KAPPACHALI, THACHANNA THEKKEYKIL HOUSE, MYTHRA P.O., ARECODE VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS ---------------------------- 1. RASHEEDALI, S/O.SAIDALAVI, POOVATHINGAL HOUSE, MAMPAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (DRIVER). 2. PREETHA SUKUMARA, S/O.SUKUMARAN, PULAKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, ALMARAM P,O., THRISSUR DISTRICT (OWNER). 3. THE NATIONAL ILNSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLLANOOR DEVASY SMARAKA BUILDING, THRISSUR (INSURER). ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE 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.1936 of 2006-C ***************************** Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident which took place on 13.12.2001. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of the left ankle, fracture of mandible, fracture of teeth with loss of two teeth. He was an inpatient for a period of 10 days. He continued treatment thereafter. He was employed as a tailor (and marketing agent?). He claimed to earn a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. He had allegedly suffered disability. He was referred to a Medical Board. The Medical Board submitted a report, which shows that he had suffered 3% physical disability. Against a total claim of Rs.2 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.41,363/- as compensation as per the details given in para.7 of the impugned award which we extract below: i) Transport to hospital : Rs. 500.00 ii) Extra nourishment and bystander's expenses : Rs. 1,000.00 iii) Medical expenses : Rs.21,763.00 M.A.C.A No.1936 of 2006-C 2 iv) Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000.00 v) Disability (1500X18X3/100): Rs. 8,100.00 ------------------- Total : Rs.41,363.00 ======== The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurance company. Challenge is raised only against the alleged inadequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all submits that the Tribunal had omitted to award any amount of compensation under the head of loss of earnings. We are satisfied that the award suffers from that inadequacy. Even though the appellant was an inpatient for 10 days, only a total amount of Rs.1,000/- has been awarded under the head of extra nourishment and bystander's expenses. This is inadequate, contends the learned counsel. We agree. We are satisfied that a total amount of Rs.2,000/- (10 X Rs.200/-) can be awarded under that head. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends M.A.C.A No.1936 of 2006-C 3 that the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income only at Rs.1,250/-. This is totally inadequate. The counsel draws our attention to clause 6 of the Second Schedule, which permits the assumption in 1994 that even a non earning person can be deemed to earn an income of Rs.1,250/- per mensem. He also relies on the dictum in Lata Wadhwa V. State of Bihar [AIR 2001 SC 3218], which shows that a non earning home maker/house wife can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. We agree that an amount of Rs.3,000/- can be reckoned as the monthly income. 3% has been certified to be the disability. Considering the fracture of the left ankle and the resultant injury, we are satisfied that the disability can be assumed to result in reduction in earning capacity to the same extent. 18 has been reckoned as the multiplier and that is justified by the age of the injured. 4. Lastly it is contended that no compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. There has been loss of 2 teeth and the appellant, a young man, aged 22 years, will have to suffer the disability for the rest of his life. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.7,500/- can be awarded under the head of loss of amenities. M.A.C.A No.1936 of 2006-C 4 5. It is contended that interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. Counsel argues and we agree that a higher rate of interest deserves to be granted. We direct that interest be granted @ 7.5% per annum. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.22,840/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. i) Loss of earning : Rs.3 ,000.00 (3,000 X one month) ii) Extra nourishment & bystander's expenses : Rs. 1,000.00 [(200 X 10) minus 1,000] iii) Disability, ie. reduction in earning capacity : Rs.11,340.00 [(3,000X12X18X3/100 = 19,440) minus 8,100] iv) Loss of amenities : Rs. 7,500.00 -------------- Total : Rs.22,840.00 ======== 7. In the result: a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.22,840/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand eight hundred and M.A.C.A No.1936 of 2006-C 5 forty only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of payment/realisation; d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/