IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1273 of 2011(A) ----------------------- OPMV.386/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER -------------- SANOOP, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.JAYAPALAN, RESIDING AT KACHERIKUNNU VEEDU P.O.KRISHNAGIRI, MENANGADI, KRISHNANGIRI VILLAGE SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT : RESPONDENT NO.3 --------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD BRANCH OFFICE SHAMMER COMPLEX, OPPOSITE, Y.M.C.A ROAD, CALICUT 673 001, SILVER PLAZA I.G.ROAD, CALICUT. SRI ZIYAD RAHIMAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1273 of 2011-A ***************************** Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He, a young person, aged 20 years, claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 17.03.2005. He had suffered multiple injuries including open fracture tibia and fibula and hip dislocation. He was treated as an inpatient in the medical college hospital for a total period of 94 days in 6 different spells. Against a total claim of Rs.10 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.3,52,900/- as per the details given in para.9 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Loss of earning (total) Rs. 60,000.00 2 Medical and miscellaneous expenses Rs. 21,100.00 3 Bystander expenses Rs. 23,500.00 (250X94 days) 4 Transportation expenses Rs. 4,000.00 5 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000.00 6 Damage to clothing, etc. Rs. 500.00 7 Pain and suffering Rs. 22,000.00 8 Permanent disability Rs.2,20,800.00 M.A.C.A No.1273 of 2011 2 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded Total Rs.3,52,900.00 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Challenge is raised against the impugned award only on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/claimant is a JCB Operator. No driving licence is seen produced. PW2 was examined and Ext.A12 salary certificate was produced to show that the claimant was getting an income of Rs.500/- per day. The Tribunal accepted Rs.5,000/- to be the monthly income. It is contended that the Tribunal was grossly in error in reckoning the monthly income only at Rs.5,000/-. We are unable to agree. We cannot find fault with the Tribunal for not accepting the oral evidence of PW2 and Ext.A12 salary certificate. On the available inputs, the conclusion of the Tribunal is that the appellant, a 20 year old JCB Operator, was earning only Rs.5,000/- per mensem. We do particularly note that no documents are even produced to show that the appellant who, even according to the M.A.C.A No.1273 of 2011 3 appellant/claimant, was a JCB helper initially and had eventually graduated into a JCB Operator was even having a driving licence. The challenge against the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal is thus found to be without any merit. 4. 23% physical disability was found by the Medical Board under Ext.C1. That was accepted by the Tribunal. It is contended that only 16 was accepted as the multiplier and going by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 17 must have been accepted as the multiplier. There is no satisfactory evidence forthcoming about the precise age of the claimant. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, cannot be found fault with for having included the appellant in the age group of persons aged 15 to 20 years. 16 is the multiplier specified under the Second Schedule for such persons. The challenge against the multiplier is thus found to be without any merit. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the appellant was an inpatient for a period of 94 days and the Tribunal had accepted that there must have been involuntary unemployment for a period of 12 months, the Tribunal erred in awarding only an amount of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for extra nourishment. We are persuaded to agree that the learned M.A.C.A No.1273 of 2011 4 counsel for the appellant. Considering the period of treatment and the spread over period (he is shown to have been admitted on 17.03.2005 for the initial spell of hospitalisation and discharged ultimately on 13.03.2007 after the final spell of hospitalisation) we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.6,000/- can safely be awarded under the head of extra nourishment. 6. Finally it is contended that the Tribunal has erred grossly in not awarding any amount under the head of loss of amenities. Physical disability suffered by a person has two fold reflections on his life. It reduces the earning capacity. It also impairs and reduces the quality of enjoyment of life. The appellant, a 20 year old person, will have to endure the disability for the entire rest of his life. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that compensation deserves to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities. This head will include loss suffered by the appellant as a consequence of physical disability not covering by the amount awarded under the head of reduction in earning capacity by adopting the multiplier-multiplicand method. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that a total amount of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded as compensation under this head. M.A.C.A No.1273 of 2011 5 7. We are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded under any other head deserves or warrants appellate interference. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation as shown below in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) Extra nourishment : Rs. 5,000.00 (6,000 minus 1,000) ii) Loss of amenities : Rs.25,000.00 (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) ------------------- Total : Rs.30,000.00 ======== 9. It is pointed out that proportionate cost has been directed to be paid. We make it clear that proportionate cost must be worked out in accordance with the dictum in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943]. 10. 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.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) in addition to the M.A.C.A No.1273 of 2011 6 amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal; d) We direct that proportionate cost shall be ascertained as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K (supra); d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/