IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 360 of 2003() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/11/2001 IN OPMV 2706 /1995 IN OPMV.2705/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(M.V) ----------------------------------------------- GEORGE STEEPHEN, S/O. STEEPHEN, CHIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VENAPPARA P.O., KODATHAI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN O.P. (M.V.) ----------------------------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIYAR, MURIKKANCHERY HOUSE, PERUMANCHERY DESOM, MAYIL AMSOM, KANNUR P.O. 2. V. LAKSHMIKUTTY, W/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIYAR, LAKSHMI NIVAS, KALLYASSERI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. (OWNER OF KL-13/A-4347 BUS) 3. THE BRANACH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., FORT ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. (POLICY NO.10080/31/40/17512). ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.360 of 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February 2009 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident. The accident took place on 17/12/1994. He was driver of a heavy vehicle and was aged 26 years on the date of the accident. He suffered fracture of radius and ulna of the left hand and femur right. He underwent treatment in two hospitals for a period of 43 days. He had allegedly suffered physical disability and it was certified by the medical board under Ext.X1 to be 15%. He examined himself as PW1. Exts.A1 to A13 and X1 were marked. 2. The Tribunal, taking into account all the relevant inputs, sailed to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.1,11,000/- can be awarded as compensation. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. 3. Called upon to explain the grounds of challenge against the quantification of the compensation amount, the M.A.C.A.No.360/03 2 learned counsel for the appellant assails the compensation awarded on the following grounds: 4. First of all, it is contended that the Tribunal was not realistic in reckoning the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1,500/- only. He had claimed that his monthly income was Rs.4,500/-. He had tendered evidence in support of the same; but no other materials could be produced. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the difficulty of a person like the claimant to produce documentary evidence in support of such an assertion about his income must be taken into account and at any rate, the amount of Rs.1,500/- per mensum reckoned by the Tribunal is not fair and reasonable. Even for a non-earning person, the law at the relevant time permitted an assumption that the notional income can be reckoned at Rs.1,250/- per mensum. For a 26 year old driver of a heavy vehicle, Rs.1,500/- assumed by the Tribunal is unrealistic, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. We find merit in that contention. We are satisfied, taking all the relevant circumstances into account including the circumstance that this accident had taken place in 1994, that an M.A.C.A.No.360/03 3 amount of Rs.1,750/- can safely be reckoned as the possible/reasonable monthly income of the claimant. This would mean that under the head of compensation for reduction in earning capacity consequent to disability, he is entitled for a further amount of Rs.8,100/- i.e. [(1750 x12x 18 x 15/100) minus (1500 x 12 x 18 x 15/100)]. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant thirdly contends that though the disability has been fixed at 12%, the Tribunal has not taken into account the reflection of such disability on the quality of enjoyment of life which the 26 year old claimant can aspire for the rest of his life. The learned counsel for the insurance company promptly points out that though amounts have not been awarded under that specific head, it cannot be lost sight of that the Tribunal had already awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. Suffering/impairment in the quality of life for the entire period of life appears to have been taken into by the Tribunal while awarding compensation under that head, contends the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. M.A.C.A.No.360/03 4 7. We take note of both contentions. We are satisfied that award of a further amount of Rs.7,500/- under the head of loss of amenities shall cater to the ends of justice even assuming that there is some overlapping in the amount awarded by the Tribunal under under the head pain and suffering with the loss of amenities that must have been suffered. 8. In the light of the above discussions, we come to the conclusions that the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.15,600/- (Rupees fifteen thousand and six hundred only) in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. Interest shall be payable on the total amount as already directed by the Tribunal. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.360/03 5 M.A.C.A.No.360/03 6 R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009