IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 591 of 2006(E) ---------------------- OPMV.1502/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- CHANDRAN @ GOVINDANKUTTY, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, AVANALI VEETTIL, P.O.KALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS ---------------------------- 1. A.V.POULOSE, IV/24, K.A.U.ESTATE QUARTERS, VELLANIKKARA, MADAKATHARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SURESH, S/O.KUMAR, KOKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.MANNUTHY, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THIRUVAMBADY DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, P.B.NO. 158, ROUND WEST, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.591 of 2006-E ***************************** Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He, a person, aged above 40 years, claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 04.03.2001. He had suffered compression fracture of the 9th and 10th thoracic vertebra. X-ray confirmed such fracture. He was treated initially as an inpatient for a period of 15 days. He continued treatment as an outpatient. He allegedly had suffered permanent disability consequent to malunion of the fracture. He allegedly suffered 30% disability as assessed by an Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics at Medical College Hospital, Trichur. The appellant/claimant examined himself as a witness. The doctor, who issued the disability certificate Ext.A11 was not examined as a witness. 2. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs awarded a total amount of Rs.93,000/- as compensation as per the details given below: M.A.C.A No.591 of 2006-E 2 Sl.No. Head of award Amount awarded 1 Los of earning from 04.03.2001 to 04.09.2001 Rs. 6,000.00 (2000 X 3) 2 Transport to hospital Rs. 300.00 3 Extra nourishment Rs. 500.00 4 Damage to clothing and articles Rs. 500.00 5 Medical expenses Rs. 3,700.00 (produced medical bill for Rs.3,626/-) 6 Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000.00 7 Compensation for continuing or permanent disability Rs. 57,600.00(24000 X 16 X 15/100) 8 Compensation for loss of earning power Rs. 10,000.00 9 Compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life Rs. 5,000.00 Total Rs. 93,000.00 3. According to the appellant, he has suffered loss of Rs.2,60,000/-. But he had limited his claim to Rs.1,20,000/-. 4. Arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The challenge is raised only on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum of compensation. 5. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the Tribunal had grossly erred in reckoning the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.2,000/- per mensem. This is grossly inadequate. M.A.C.A No.591 of 2006-E 3 The appellant was a tailor cum tea shop owner and in any view of the matter, the amount of monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal is unacceptable, contends the learned counsel. The learned counsel relies on clause 6 of the Second Schedule. He also relies on the precedents of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa V. State of Bihar [AIR 2001 SC 3218] and Laxmi Devi & Ors. V. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr. [2008 ACJ 1488]. 6. We are satisfied that under any circumstance, Rs.3,000/- can safely be reckoned as the monthly income. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the Tribunal erred in reckoning only 15% as the reduction in earning capacity. In addition to the oral evidence of the appellant, there was only Ext.A11 disability certificate which had not been strictly proved. The appellant did not want to be sent to the Medical Board for evaluation of disability. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, according to us, was perfectly justified in reckoning 15% as the reduction in earning capacity consequent to the disability suffered. 8. For loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the data available in Ext.A11 disability M.A.C.A No.591 of 2006-E 4 certificate which says that the appellant will have to wear corset life long for walking purposes consequent to the disability suffered. We are satisfied that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities (Rs.5,000/-) can be enhanced. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant finally contends that the amount awarded under the head of extra nourishment is insufficient. No amount has been awarded as compensation for bystander's expenses. We are satisfied that under the composite head of extra nourishment and bystander's expenses, an amount at the rate of Rs.150/- per day for the entire period of 15 days can be awarded (less the amount of Rs.500/- already awarded). 10. The learned counsel for the insurance company points out that following the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], for the appellant who is of the age group 40-45 years, 14 and not 16 should be reckoned as the multiplier. We agree. 11. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves modification/enhancement. 12. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.27,750/- as shown M.A.C.A No.591 of 2006-E 5 below in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. i) Loss of earning : Rs. 3,000.00 [(Rs.3,000 X 3 = 9000) minus 6000] ii) Bystander's expenses and extra nourishment: Rs. 1,750.00 [(15XRs.150 = 2,250) minus 500] iii) Compensation for reduction in earning capacity : Rs.18,000.00 [(3000 X 12 X 14 X 15/100 = 75,600) minus 57,600] iv) Compensation for loss of amenities : Rs. 5,000.00 (10000 minus 5,000) ------------------- Total Rs.27,750.00 ======== 13. We are not satisfied that amount awarded under any other head deserves modification/enhancement. 14. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to receive a further amount of Rs.27,750/- (Rupees Twenty seven thousand seven hundred and fifty only) in addition to the amount already M.A.C.A No.591 of 2006-E 6 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 specified by the Tribunal in the impugned award; d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/