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 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1491 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1871/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------- M.K.MANIYAMMA, W/O.LATE M.V.ACHUTHAN, MALANIKUNNATHIL,AREEKARA, MULAKUZHA,CHENGANNUR,MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. C.K.BABU,CHARIYARAKUZHI,VAZHOOR, CHANGANACHERRY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 101. 2. SAJEESHKUMAR, MALANILKUNNATHIL,AREEKARA, MULAKUZHA,CHENGANNUR, MAVELIKKARA 689 505. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO-LTD, THIRUVALLA 689 645. ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R3 SC ADV.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimant is the appellant. She, a 61 year old woman, claimed compensation for the personal injuries suffered by her in a motor accident which took place on 10/08/2003. She had suffered injury to the right eye. According to her, there was loss of vision of the right eye. She was an in-patient for a period of five days. She was a home maker. Against a total claim of Rs.1,90,000/-, the tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.50,550/- as per the details given in paragraph 9 of the impugned award which we extract below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rupees) Amount awarded (in Rupees) Basis vita details in a nut shell 1. Loss of earnings (Total) -- -- 2. Medical and miscellaneous expenses 20,000/- 10,000/- 3. Bystander expenses 1,000/- 500/- 4. Transportation expenses 10,000/- 1,500/- 5. Extra nourishment 3,000/- 1,500/- 6. Damage to clothing, etc. 1,000/- 250/- 7. pain and suffering 35,000/- 10,000/- 8. Loss of amenities 10,000/- 10,000/- M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 2 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount claimed (in Rupees) Amount awarded (in Rupees) Basis vita details in a nut shell 9. Permanent disability 75,000/- 16,800/- 10. Any other heads Loss of earning power 25,000/- Nil No evidence 11 Total 1,90,000/- 50,550/- 2. Arguments have been advanced. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The insurance company/3rd respondent has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. Challenge is raised against the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the monetary equivalent of the services rendered by the appellant as a home maker has been assessed at a painfully low figure of Rs.2,000/- per mensum. Going by the decision in Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2001 SC 3218] atleast Rs.3,000/- per mensum must have been reckoned as the monetary equivalent of the services on the date of the accident i.e. 10/08/2003, contends counsel. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant on that aspect. We are further satisfied M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 3 that the injury suffered must have rendered the appellant involuntarily unable to pursue her normal chores for a period of two months. She is entitled for compensation for loss of services for such period. 4. The learned counsel then contends that considering the nature of the injury, i.e. rupture of the right eye, the compensation for pain and suffering awarded at Rs.10,000/- is inadequate. We agree. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded as compensation under the head of pain and suffering. 5. Under the head of permanent disability, a total amount of Rs.26,800/- has been awarded (Rs.16,800/- under the head of reduction in earning capacity called permanent disability in the impugned award and Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of amenities). The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amount awarded is too low and inadequate. Adopting the multiplier-multiplicand method, the compensation ought to have been ascertained, contends counsel. We reckon the monthly income as Rs.3,000/-. The medical certificate shows that 30% is the physical disability suffered. Loss of vision of right eye is the M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 4 permanent disability suffered. Going by entry 26 of part 2 of schedule 1 of the Employees Compensation Act, we are satisfied that the assessment of the Doctor who issued Ext.A14 disability certificate that the appellant had suffered disability to the extent of 30% can safely be accepted. We are satisfied that compensation can be awarded under the multiplier-multiplicand method,taking 7 as the multiplier as rightly done by the tribunal. 6. We further clarify that proportionate cost awarded by the tribunal shall be calculated as per the decision in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943]. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.69,800/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. i) Loss of earnings (services) Rs.6,000/- (No amount awarded by the tribunal (Rs.3,000/- x 2) ii) Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- (Rs.15,000/- minus Rs.10,000/-) iii) Permanent disability Rs.58,800/- [Rs.75,600/-(Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 7 x 30/100) minus Rs.16,800/-] --------------------- Total Rs.69,800/- ========= M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 5 7. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) Appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.69,800/- (Rupees sixty nine thousand eight hundred only) in addition to the amount already 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 as directed by the tribunal in the impugned award. d) Proportionate cost before the tribunal shall be paid as per the decision in Jeena (Supra). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 6 M.A.C.A.No.1491 of 2011 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010