IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1502 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1870/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- P.SURENDRAN, S/O.PONU, CHALIL HOUSE,PEYAD P.O., KRUSHUMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. S.RAJAMONY,S/O.BUBBAYA NADAR, PRAYARAKKAL VILA VEEDU, THALACHANVILA, PARASALA 695502 2. T.HENRY,S/O.M.THOMASAS, KANDAKAN VILA VEEDU, THALACHANVILA, PARASALA 600 019. 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LMS BUILDING,PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023 ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1502 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant is the appellant. He, a 45 year old person employed as Canteen Worker by the Reserve Bank of India, claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 6/7/02. He had suffered injuries including displaced fracture of right zygomatic complex. He was an inpatient from 7/7/02 to 17/7/02 (10 days). He had allegedly suffered permanent disability to the tune of 8%. The Doctor who issued the disability certificate was not examined. The extent of disability was accepted by the Tribunal at 5% even in the absence of any better evidence. Against a total claim of `2,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of `54,382/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 13 of the impugned award which we extract below: Sl.No. Head of Claim Amount awarded Basis - vital details in a nutshell 1 Loss of earning 14432 For 1 ½ months (7000 x 1 ½) 2 Transportation to the hospital 500 Reasonable estimate made 3 Damages to clothing 250 Reasonable estimate made M.A.C.A. No.1502 of 2011 -: 2 :- Sl.No. Head of Claim Amount awarded Basis - vital details in a nutshell 4 Extra nourishment 500 Reasonable estimate made 5 Bystander's expenses 1000 IP treatment for 10 days 6 Medical and miscellaneous expenses 500 No bills produced. Reasonable estimate made 7 Compensation for pain and suffering 15000 Displaced fracture of right zygomatic complex 8 Compensation for continuing disability 16200 3000 x 12 x 9 x 5 9 Compensation for loss of amenities 6000 Reasonable estimate made Total 54382 Limited to Rs.2,00,000/- With interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition 5/10/2002 till 17/8/2007, the date of dismissal of the OP and from 3/11/2009, the date of restoration till 5/1/2010, the date of dismissal of the OP and from 8/6/2010, the date of restoration till realization. The insurer was made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 3. Called upon to explain, the learned counsel for the appellant argues that the quantum of compensation awarded under all heads are not sufficient. We note that the Tribunal has accepted 1 ½ months as the period of enforced unemployment and has awarded full amount of wages/salary during the period M.A.C.A. No.1502 of 2011 -: 3 :- as compensation for loss of earnings. For pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded. Even in the absence of any better evidence, the Tribunal has accepted 5% as the reduction in earning capacity. Even though at present there is no actual reduction in earnings, the Tribunal accepted that after the period of retirement, the physical disability may have an impact on the earning capacity of the appellant. Therefore 9 was reckoned as the multiplier assuming that reduction in earning capacity will have a reflection after retirement (after the age of 55/58 years). 4. We are not, in these circumstances, satisfied that the amount awarded under any specific head demands or warrants interference. 5. Finally the learned counsel for the appellant argues that proportionate cost has not been awarded by the Tribunal. We are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to proportionate cost in the proceedings before the Tribunal as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943] . 6. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The impugned award is upheld in all other respects. M.A.C.A. No.1502 of 2011 -: 4 :- c) But it is directed that the appellant shall be entitled to proportionate cost in the proceedings before the Tribunal on the amount awarded as per the dictum in Jeena(supra). Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- V. CHITAMBARESH (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge