IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 716 of 2011() ---------------------- OPMV.3084/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ BINI JOSE, D/O.JOSE, MENACHERY HOUSE, MANNUTHI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.MOLLY KOSHY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. FAZALU RAHMAN, S/O.IBRAHIM, CHERUKATTIL HOUSE, KACHANNUR.P.O., VADAKKEKKAD, THRISSUR-679 562. 2. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, NJARAKKATTUVALAPPIL, THANGALOOR.P.O. 680 581. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THRISSUR BRANCH, THRISSUR-680 001. ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 716 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant is the appellant. She, who was about 26 years on the date of the accident, had suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 27/11/2003. She was an inpatient for a period of 12 days. She had suffered serious injuries including compound fracture of both bones of right forearm, fracture of the nasal bone and fracture of 8th rib on the right side. She underwent treatment initially as an inpatient and subsequently as an outpatient. She had undergone two spells of hospitalisation. She had allegedly suffered permanent disability as a result of the accident. A Doctor had certified the extent of disability to be 15% to the right upper limb and 5% to the face as per Ext.A8 disability certificate. The author of the certificate was not examined. Against a total claim of `2,50,000/- the Tribunal awarded a total amount of `1,39,000/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph-12 of the impugned award which we extract below: M.A.C.A. No. 716 of 2011 -: 2 :- Sl. No. Head of claim Amount awarded Basis vital details in a nut shell 1 Loss of earing (total) 21066 2 Loss of earning (partial) 3 Medical and Miscellaneous expenses 57082 4 Future treatment 5 Bystander's expenses 2000 6 Transportation Expenses 1000 7 Extra-nourishment 1500 8 Damage to clothing etc., 500 9 Pain and suffering 25000 10 Disability etc., 30600 2500 x 12 x 17 x 6/100 Loss of earning power Loss of amenities Disfiguration Marriage prospects Total Rounded off to 1,38,748/- 1,39,000/- 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The insurance company has been made entirely liable to satisfy the award. The challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on two specific grounds. The learned counsel for the appellant, first of all, submits that the compensation for disability arrived at by the M.A.C.A. No. 716 of 2011 -: 3 :- multiplier-multiplicand method is unrealistic. Her monthly income is reckoned as `2,500/-. The extent of disability accepted by the Tribunal only as 6%. On both these aspects quantified compensation for disability is unjustified, contends counsel. The multiplier ought to have been accepted as 18 going by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, contends counsel. 4. It is secondly contended that no amount of compensation has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. Physical disability suffered by an individual has two fold reflections on his life. It reduces his earning capacity. It also reduces the quality of enjoyment of life which the victim can aspire for. As far as the appellant is concerned, at the age of 26 years, she had suffered disability and she definitely entitled to be compensated for loss of amenities. No amount whatsoever has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities, contends counsel. 5. We have considered all the relevant aspects. Under the head of disability (really it is reduction in earning capacity), the Tribunal has resorted to the multiplier-multiplicand method and had assessed the compensation payable to be `30,600/- (2500 x 12 x 17 x 6/100). We have indications to suggest that M.A.C.A. No. 716 of 2011 -: 4 :- the appellant had subsequently secured employment in Government service and the physical disability is not, at the moment, having any reflections on her actual earnings. But the learned counsel for the appellant is correct in his submission that the appellant is disabled to perform domestic chores as a house wife/home maker as a result of the accident. `3,000/- can be assumed to be the earnings of such a woman also going by the dictum in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 3218). In these circumstances, we agree with the learned counsel that `3,000/- must have been accepted as the equivalent monthly services as a home maker. 18 must have been adopted as the multiplier as the claimant/appellant definitely belongs to the age group of 25 to 30 years for whom 18 is prescribed as the multiplier under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. The extent of physical disability/reduction in earning capacity is reckoned by the Tribunal at 6% only. In the light of Ext.A8 disability certificate we find no error/fault in that conclusion of the Tribunal. 6. We are further satisfied that under the head of loss of amenities, reasonable amount of compensation has to be awarded as the quality of enjoyment of life would certainly be reduced and impaired as a result of the accident. We take note M.A.C.A. No. 716 of 2011 -: 5 :- of all the dimensions including inconveniences, disabilities, discomfiture, disfigurement, shortened expectation of life etc. We are satisfied that award of a total amount of `20,000/- shall be adequate compensation under the head of loss of amenities. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of `28,280/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand two hundred and eighty only) as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal: 1. Compensation for physical disability (inability to pursue domestic chores) - (`3,000/- x 12 x 18 x 6/100 = `38,880/- minus `30,600/-) - `8,280/- 2. Loss of amenities (all dimensions) - `20,000/- ------------- Total - `28,280/- ====== 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that proportionate cost as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943) has not been awarded by the Tribunal. We agree with the learned counsel and direct payment of proportionate cost in the proceedings before the Tribunal for the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). M.A.C.A. No. 716 of 2011 -: 6 :- 9. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of `28,280/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand two hundred and eighty only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. (c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the Tribunal in the impugned award. (d) Proportionate cost for the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be paid to the claimant/appellant as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). (e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge