IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1237 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.954/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT -------------------------------- M.G.SREEKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, MOLATHU HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM P.O., KURUPPAMPADY (VIA). BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.HYDROSE, PEEDIKA PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENGAMANAD KARA, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE. 2. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, THOPPILKUDIYIL HOUSE, MARKET P.O., MOOVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PATTAMANA BUILDINGS, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 SRI.E.G.GORDEN FOR R1 & R2 SRI.P.P.SUDHEER FOR R1 & R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1237 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for personal injuries suffered as a result of the motor accident which occurred on 18/1/1999. He had suffered fracture of the left fibula and also bimalleolar fracture of the left ankle. He was an in-patient for a period of 14 days. He had suffered disability which was quantified by 8% by PW1 doctor. The appellant had tendered Exts.A1 to A14 in addition to the oral evidence of PW1 who issued Ext.A9 medical certificate. 2. The tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances, directed payment of an amount of Rs.94,100/- as per the details shown below: 1. Pain and Suffering Rs.15,000/- 2. Loss of earnings Rs.9,000/- (Rs.3,000 x 3) 3. Transport to hospital Rs.1,500/- M.A.C.A.No.1237/04 2 4. Damage to clothing Rs.500/- 5. Medical bills Rs.24,200/- (Against actual bills produced) 6. Bystanders expenditure Rs.1,500/- 7. Reduction in earning capacity consequent to Rs.32,400/- disability (3,000 x 12 x 18 x 5/100) 8. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.94,100/- 3. Interest was directed to be paid @9% per annum. The learned counsel for the appellant claims that the appellant is aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the reason? Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the tribunal had unjustifiably reduced 8% of disability certificate by the doctor to 5% while ascertaining the quantum of compensation payable for reduction in earning capacity. This is not justified, it is contended first of all. It is further contended that, at any rate, the quantification of the compensation for loss of amenities at Rs.10,000/- is not justified. The age, nature of disability etc of the appellant if taken into account in proper perspective, the M.A.C.A.No.1237/04 3 appellant is certainly entitled for a higher amount of compensation under the head loss of amenities, contends the counsel. Thirdly and finally the learned counsel contends that, at any rate, the tribunal erred in not awarding compensation for future expenditure for removal of the rod which remains in the body now. 4. The learned counsel for the insurance company contends that adoption of multiplier-multiplicand method to assess the reduction in earning capacity of the appellant who is a lawyer is not perfectly justified. At any rate, the total amount of Rs.42,400/- awarded as compensation for disability under two heads - heads 7 and 8 above is sufficient and the same does not justify the claim for upward modification. 5. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We note that the doctor has opined that 8% disability has resulted. We particularly note that there is no shortening of the length of the limb concerned though there is an assertion supported by the doctor in the disability certificate that though there is no shortening of the length of the limping has resulted because of the injury suffered. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that reckoning 5% as the reduction in earning capacity M.A.C.A.No.1237/04 4 is eminently justifiable considering the nature of activity of the appellant as a professional lawyer. The physical disability may not lead tangible decrease in the income but definitely the physical strain required to do the same amount of work shall certainly be higher. In these circumstances, the employment of the multiplier multiplicand method, we are satisfied, need not be interfered with though we are satisfied that the reckoning of the disability for the purpose of computing the loss of earning power at 5% is absolutely justified. 6. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that for the impairment of the quality of life which has resulted from the disability suffered by him, adequate compensation has not been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. In the totality of circumstances, we are satisfied that award of a further amount of Rs.10,000/- (award of a total amount of Rs.20,000/-) under the head of loss of amenities for the 30 year old unmarried appellant will be justified. The certificate issued by the doctor clearly shows that implant was undertaken. The accident and the surgery took place in 1999 and for the past one decade evidently rod remains in the limb is not removed. However, taking into consideration all the relevant M.A.C.A.No.1237/04 5 circumstances, a provision of further amount of Rs.6,000/- as compensation for future treatment shall be absolutely justified. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand only) as per the details already given above. (Rs.10,000/- more for loss of amenities and Rs.6,000/- for future treatment). 8. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. Interest shall be payable on the entire amount (less the amount of Rs.6,000/- awarded for further treatment) from the date of the petition. For the said amount of Rs.6,000/- interest shall be payable at the rate directed by the tribunal from this date only. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.1237/04 6 M.A.C.A.No.1237/04 7 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009