IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 1026 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.375/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ---------------------------------- T.J. AUGUSTIAN, S/O. JOSEPH, THEKKEKKUTTA HOUSE, MALIKA, AMBALAVAYAL POST, BATHERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3: --------------- THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G.T. BUILDINGS KALPETTA, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.1026 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT,J. Claimant is the appellant. Against the claim for Rs.3,00,000/-, only an amount of Rs.57,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. The accident occurred on 22.5.2002. Both bones of the right leg were fractured. The appellant continued as an inpatient for 34 days. He was working as a headload worker. Exst.A11 disability certificate suggests that the physical disability was 15% and occupational disability was 30%. The doctor who issued Ext.A11 was not examined as a witness. 2. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, awarded a total amount of Rs.57,000/- as per the details given below: 1. loss of earnings : Rs. 4,500/- (3x1,500) 2. Transport to Hospital : Rs. 1,500/- 3. Extra nourishment : Rs. 3,000/- 4. Bystanders expenses : Rs.3,000/- 5. Medical expense : Rs.15,000/- M.A.C.A No.1026 OF 2005 2 6. Pain and suffering : Rs.5,000/- 7. Disability : Rs. 25,000/- (Global) ------------------- Total Rs. 57,000/- ======== 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised three specific contentions. First of all, it is contended that the monthly income reckoned at Rs.1,500/- even after proof by Ext.A10 that the appellant was a headload worker is not reasonable. Secondly it is contended that considering the nature of the injuries and the period of hospitalisation, the award of only Rs.5000/- as compensation for pain and suffering is not justified. Thirdly it is contended that the award of global amount of Rs.25,000/- without following the multiplier multiplicand method is also not correct or proper. It is on these planks that the impugned award is challenged. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The accident occurred in 2002. We find merit in the contention that even in the absence of any better evidence, the reckoning of Rs.1,500/- as monthly income of the claimant/appellant is not justifiable. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.2,000/- can safely be reckoned as monthly income of the appellant - proved to be a headload M.A.C.A No.1026 OF 2005 3 worker in May 2002. 5. Taking note of the injury - fracture of both bones of right lower leg, and history of treatment, we are satisfied that the award of an amount of Rs.5,000/- only as compensation for pain and suffering is inadequate. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded as compensation for pain and suffering. 6. So far as the claim for compensation on the ground of disability is concerned, the Tribunal did not specifically ascertain the extent of disability. Ext.A11 disability certificate was thrust into court without proper proof. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/-. We find that the Tribunal had, going by that calculation accepted 8% as reduction in earning capacity (Rs.1,500x12x8/100x17=Rs.24,480/-). We are not persuaded to agree that any higher figure need or deserves to be reckoned as the percentage reduction in earning capacity. However, we are satisfied that the compensation for reduction in earning capacity can also be reckoned taking in to account Rs.2,000/- as his monthly income. 7. On the above finding, we are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.19,140/- as compensation. M.A.C.A No.1026 OF 2005 4 1. Loss of earnings : Rs. 1,500/- (3 x 2000 minus 4,500/-) 2. Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/-(Rs.15,000/- minus Rs.5,000/-) 3. Reduction in earning capacity : Rs.7,640/-(2000x12x17x8/100 minus 25,000/-) --------------- Total Rs.19,140/- ======== 8. We are not satisfied that the amounts awarded under any other head deserves upward modification. 9. In the result: 1. This appeal is allowed in part. 2. In addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal, the respondent shall pay further amount of Rs.19,140/- to the appellant along with interest as already directed and proportionate costs. 3. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE mns