IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 525 of 2004() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1430/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- SURENDRAN, S/O. KUNJAN @ KUNJAPPAN, AGED 41 YEARS, KAROTTUMULAPPILLIL HOUSE, PUTTUMANNOOR KARA, PUTHENCRUZ VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SMT.A.S.BEENU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. P.P.MARIAMMA, CHEMBAKKOTTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, AYAKKADU, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. JIJI C.GEORGE, S/O. GEEVARGHESE, CHEMBAKKOTTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, AYAKKADU, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SMT.K.C.BEENA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.525 of 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Koshy, J. Appellant-claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 8.5.2000. He claimed Rs.10,50,00/- as compensation. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent driver of the car, owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent, who was permitted to represent the case. Respondents 1 and 2 remained absent and declared ex parte. Tribunal awarded Rs.3,19,600/- as compensation of which Rs.1,44,600/- was for reimbursement of medical expenses considering the actual medical bills produced. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. The Tribunal did not grant compensation for disability on a multiplier basis. But Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded as compensation for disability and consequent loss of earning power. According to the appellant he is a mason by profession and was getting Government contract for masonery work also and he was getting a monthly income Rs.8,000/-. Appellant M.A.C.A. NO. 524 of 2004 -: 2 :- produced Exhibit A11 intimation regarding assessment under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act to show the turnover of his work and the income earned by him. But according to the Tribunal the injuries caused to the appellant are not likely to affect his work as a Contractor. According to the appellant he is a mason basically and only as a mason he will be getting contract work and the disability will affect him in getting such contract works in future. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the compensation should be calculated on a scientific basis. It was argued by the appellant that even an unskilled worker in Kerala will get Rs.150/- per day and gets 26 days work in a month. Being a skilled worker and if Rs.200/- is taken as wages per day for 25 days he will get Rs.5,000/-. Considering all the aspects and also considering Exhibit A11, we fix Rs.4,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant. Appellant was 37 years age at the relevant time. It has been repeatedly held by the Honourable Supreme Court that Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act should be taken as guideline for adopting the correct multiplier. As per the Second Schedule 16 is the apt multiplier. 3. With regard to the percentage of disability the Medical Board certified 32% disability. Exhibit A8 is the wound certificate which shows the following injuries: M.A.C.A. NO. 524 of 2004 -: 3 :- “lacerated wound scalp on back of head (right temporal region) swelling tenderness left forearm fracture of femur middle 3rd left fracture head of femur left compound comminuted fracture both bones left leg lacerated wound left leg 15 x17 c.m. anteriorily exposing deep structure”. Appellant was in the hospital for 72 days. Exhibit X1 shows that he sustained fracture of the femur right leg and comminuted fracture both bones of right leg and the fracture was treated with interlocking nailing and external fixation application. According to the appellant because of the injuries he cannot do any masonery work and contract works were completely lost. 4. The Medical Board of the General Hospital, Ernakulam noticed the following disability: “Stiffness of (L) knee with 50% flexion 12 Deformity of (L) leg and foot 1½ inch shortening 14 M.A.C.A. NO. 524 of 2004 -: 4 :- Pain left hip with inability to sit in squatting position and climbing steps with pair leg and swelling foot 8 --------------- 34” 5. Considering the medical certificate issued by the Medical Board compensation should have been granted fixing 25% disability. If that be so, the compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning comes to Rs.1,92,000/-. Deducting Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal the appellant will be entitled to get Rs.92,000/- as additional compensation under that count. According to the Tribunal due to the injuries suffered by the appellant he could not have worked for six months and awarded Rs.12,000/- as compensation for loss of earning. Since we have re-fixed monthly income as Rs.4,000/- appellant will be entitled to get Rs.12,000/- more under that count. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that compensation awarded on other counts are very low. Only actual medical bills were produced by the appellant. During the period of medical treatment in the hospital there are lot of expenses which were not covered by the medical bills and subsequent treatment was also there. However, considering the total amount of compensation to which the appellant is found entitled we find no reason to enhance M.A.C.A. NO. 524 of 2004 -: 5 :- compensation on other counts. Appeal is allowed in part. Appellant is allowed to realise a further sum of Rs.1,04,000/- as additional compensation over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation. The third respondent is directed to deposit that amount. On such deposit appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv