IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 522 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.1018/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: -------------- GINESH K.V. @ DINESH K.V., S/O. VIJAYAN, KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, NEDUPAUZHA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1.YOHANNAN @ KUNJUMON, S/O. MATHEW ABRAHAM, VADAYAPARAMBU, THIRUMARAYOORKALAMBUR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2.SABU K. JACOB, A.M. ROAD, MOKOKOHUNG, NAGALAND. 3.THE ORIENTAL INSURANC CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, T.R. TOWERS, MARKET ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY // THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO.522 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- as compensation for the personal injury suffered by him in an accident which took place on 18.3.2002. He filed the petition within two months from the date of the accident. He claimed to be a gold worker by employment. His monthly income, according to him, was Rs.12,000/-. He was an inpatient for a total period of 90 days. Fracture of the neck of right femur is the injury suffered by him. He had allegedly suffered permanent physical disability . 30% was alleged to be the disability suffered under Ext.A18 disability certificate. 2. Before the Tribunal, the claim was tried along with another claim. The claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and the doctor who had issued Ext.A18 certificate was examined as PW.2. Exts.A1 to A19 were also marked. M.A.C.A. NO.522/2009 2 3. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of an amount of Rs.1,64,600/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition. The details of the amounts awarded are given below: i. Loss of earning :Rs. 4,000/- ii. Expense for transportation :Rs. 1,000/- iii. Expense for extra nourishment :Rs. 6,000/- iv. Damages to clothing :Rs. 500/- v. Expense for treatment :Rs. 12,100/- vi. Expense for bystander :Rs. 9,000/- vii. Compensation for pain and suffering :Rs. 20,000/- viii. Compensation for loss of amenities :Rs. 10,000/- ix. Compensation for disability (2000x12x17x25/100) :Rs.1,02,000/- ----------------- Total :Rs.1,64,600/- ----------------- 4. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, learned counsel for the M.A.C.A. NO.522/2009 3 appellant assails the impugned award on the following specific grounds: 5. First of all, it is contended that the acceptance of the multiplicand at Rs.2,000/- is incorrect. The appellant claims to be a gold worker earning a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. No better evidence other than the self serving statement of the appellant was made available. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, chose it safer to draw a presumption on prudence that the monthly income can be reckoned at Rs.2,000/-. In the nature of the evidence available in this case, we are unable to uphold the contention that the Tribunal committed any error warranting appellate interference in not completely accepting the ipse dixit of the appellant. The multiplier was reckoned at 17. According to the appellant, 18 must have been reckoned as the multiplier for a person in the age group of 20 to 25. As per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier prescribed for persons in the age group of 20 to 25 is 17 and for those under the age group of 25 to 30, the multiplier specified is 18, contends counsel. There is nothing in evidence to show whether the claimant had crossed the rubicon or not. In these circumstances, in the total absence of any material to prove that the appellant belonged to the age group of 25 to 30, the Tribunal reckoned 17 as the multiplier. We are not persuaded to agree that the Tribunal committed any error in reckoning 17 as the M.A.C.A. NO.522/2009 4 multiplier. 6. Another grievance raised is that the percentage of disability certified by PW.2 at 30% has not been completely accepted by the Tribunal and instead only 25% disability has been accepted. The Tribunal has given reasons thereof in detail in paragraph 11 of the award. Even assuming that the physical disability is around 30%, we are satisfied that considering the nature of the alleged disability and the nature of the income earning activity of the appellant, reckoning 25% as reduction in earning capacity does not as such warrant appellate interference. 7. The only other contention raised is that future expenses for treatment have not been taken into consideration. The application was filed within two months of the date of the accident and loss of earning for the entire period of two months has been awarded by the Tribunal. All the vouchers produced to prove medical expenses, even when they related to post petition period, have been accepted by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contention that higher amount is due under that head. We, however, note that Rs.20,000/- was awarded as compensation for pain and suffering and Rs.6,000/- was granted towards expenses for extra nourishment. We are satisfied, in these M.A.C.A. NO.522/2009 5 circumstances, that the total compensation of Rs.1,64,600/- awarded by the Tribunal is fair, reasonable and just and the same does not warrant any interference. 8. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.522/2009 6 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.522/2009 JUDGMENT 4th March, 2009