IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 998 of 2002 OPMV.1775/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- MOHAMMED HAJI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE MAYI, KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, P.O.CHERAMANANGADU, VIA.MARATHANCODE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. K.M.SAIDHU, XI/343, KARUVATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.PERUMPILAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. V.Y.MOHAMMED ALI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. YAVU, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, P.O.CHIRAMANANGAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KUNNAMKULAM BRANCH, KUNNAMKULAM R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.TONY MATHEW R3 BY ADV. SMT.K.C.BEENA THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A. NO. 998 OF 2002 E ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th March, 2008 JUDGMENT J.B.KOSHY, J. The appellant/claimant, at the age of 52, sustained serious injuries in a motor accident. He claimed Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.53,300/- with interest and directed the third respondent insurer of the offending vehicle to deposit the compensation. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence we are considering only that question in this judgment. 2. The accident occurred on 27.6.1999. According to the appellant, he was earlier employed in Behrain Navy. On retirement, he was running a grocery shop along with two others. He produced Ext.A29, copy of sale deed, to show that the building in 8.5 cents of land was purchased in the name of three persons including the appellant. Since no data was produced, the Tribunal did not assess the monthly income. The appellant/claimant was aged 52 at the time of accident. He was an earning person and maintaining his family. In 1994, even for a non-earning person, the notional income can be fixed at Rs.1,250/- per month (Rs.15,000/- per year). Here, the appellant is an earning person and the accident occurred in 1999. In the absence of evidence, we assess Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant. The Tribunal found that as a result of the accident, he was under treatment for five months. Therefore, for loss of actual earnings, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.10,000/-. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/-. M.F.A. NO.998 OF 2002 :: 2 :: Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- for loss of earnings during the period of treatment. 3. As far as injuries are concerned, Ext.A2 is the wound certificate and Exts.A4 and A5 are the discharge summaries. Ext.A5 shows the following injuries: “1. Lacerated wound 3 x 1 x 0.5 cm left frontal area. 2. Lacerated wound 5 x 3 x 1 cm lateral malleolus left with contused abrasion. 3. Swelling with tenderness on left lateral malleolus and calcanium. 4. Swelling with multiple abrasions with tenderness on right calcanous, lateral malleolus, medial malleolus. 5. Swelling and tenderness left shoulder, scapula. 6. Tenderness left sterno-clavicular joint with sterno- clavicular subluxation. 7. Comminuted fracture left scapula, undisplaced fracture both calcanei, base of 3rd and 4th metatarsals left, lateral malleolus left, undisplaced fracture medial malleolus right. He was treated by wound debridement and suturing. Below knee POP slabs for both the limbs were applied. He was advised to keep the limbs elevated and rest in sling.” Ext.A6 medical certificate was produced to show that he had 25% disability. The Tribunal did not accept the same. But, awarded Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for disability, loss of earning power and loss of amenities. M.F.A. NO.998 OF 2002 :: 3 :: Considering the injuries sustained, we agree with the Tribunal that the 25% disability fixed cannot be the whole bodied disability and 25% disability cannot be accepted for the purpose of calculating compensation. Considering the medical certificate, long period of treatment and the nature of injuries, we are of the opinion that the compensation can be granted for 10% disability. Since the appellant was aged 52, eleven can be taken as the multiplier. If that be so, the compensation payable will be Rs.2,000 x 12 x 11 x 10/100 = Rs.26,400/-. Thus, he will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.6,400/- under the head compensation for disability, loss of earning power and loss of amenities. Just and reasonable compensation was awarded by the Tribunal under other heads. Therefore, the appellant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.11,400/-. The above amount of Rs.11,400/- should be deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit, over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal. On deposit of the amount, the appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed partly. (J.B.KOSHY) Judge (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ J.B.KOSHY & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. 998 OF 2002 E JUDGMENT 19th March, 2008 -------------------------------------------