IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 813 of 2011 ---------------------- OPMV.1673/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ RAMESAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, PEEDIKAPPARAMBU VEEDU, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, VALIYAPARAMBU P.O., VIA. HARIPAD, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. V.I.ROY, S/O.ETHAPPY, VADAKKAN HOUSE, KUNNATHUNNADU VILLAGE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.690548 2. N.M.BABY, S/O.ABRAHAM, NJATTINKALA VEEDU PATTITHANAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KUNNATHUNAD PANCHAYAT WARD NO.1.686 631. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM. 690502 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 813 OF 2011 ============================ Dated this the 24th day of August 2011 JUDGMENT R.Basant, J. The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 6/4/1999. He was aged 35 years at the relevant time. He was employed as waiter in a Bar. He claimed that he was getting Rs.6000/- per month inclusive of all inputs. He had suffered injuries including fracture mandible, fracture lateral condyle of tibia and fracture of the meta carpal bone of the right hand. He was an inpatient for a period of 11 days . He had allegedly suffered physical disability to the tune of 11%. A disability certificate issued by a doctor, who was not examined before court was pressed into service in support of this contention. The same was marked as Ext.A13. The Tribunal allowed the claim in part and directed payment of an amount of Rs.90,500/- along with interest as per the details which are given MACA 813/2011 2 below: 1 Loss of earnings Rs.10,000/-(2500x4) 2 Transport to hospital Rs. 2,500/- 3 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,500/- 4 Bystander expenses Rs. 1,000/- 5 Medical Bills Rs. 2,000/- 6 Pain & sufferings Rs.20,000/- 7 Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- 8 Reduction in earning power Rs.43,200 (2500x12x16x9/100) Total Rs.90,500/- 2. The challenge is raised only on the ground of inadequacy of quantum of compensation. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on various grounds. 3. First of all, the learned counsel contends that the quantum of monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal for ascertaining the loss of earnings and for loss of reduction in earning capacity is too low. Only Rs.2500/- was reckoned as the monthly income. We must note that the accident had taken place on 6/4/1999. The appellant claimed that his monthly income was Rs.6000/-. Ext.A16 salary certificate which MACA 813/2011 3 suggested that the monthly income was Rs.9000/- inclusive of all incidental earnings including tips etc. was produced. The author of the same was not examined. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, drew the presumption of prudence that even in the absence of any better evidence, Rs.2500/- can safely be assumed to be the monthly income. We must note that the Tribunal was called upon to decide the monthly income on a date as early as on 6/4/1999. 4. In the absence of better and acceptable evidence, we are satisfied that the findings of the Tribunal does not warrant interference. 5. The Tribunal reckoned 9% as the reduction in earning capacity against the content of medical certificate which suggested that 11% was the physical disability. Physical disability and reduction in earning capacity are not synonymous expressions. On the available material, we are satisfied that the Tribunal cannot be found fault with for reckoning the reduction in earning capacity at 9%. We do note that following the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2009)6 S.C.C.121] only 15 can be reckoned as the multiplier whereas the Tribunal in the instant case had reckoned 16 as the MACA 813/2011 4 multiplier. We note that an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded under the head of pain and suffering and further amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities for the alleged physical disability. We have considered the amount awarded under all other heads. We are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded under any head does warrant appellate interference invoking our jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. We are satisfied that this appeal does not merit admission and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed in limine. R.BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.