IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 510 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.670/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE OP (MV): -------------------------------------------------------------- K. SHANKAR, S/O. KANIAPPANADAR, 33 YEARS, ELLAMPALLAI STREET, MUHAVOOR P.O., MUTHUSHONIAPURAM, C/O. R.R. PARAMESWARAM, CHANDRALAYAM, RANNI P.O. PERUMPUZHA-689 672. BY ADVS. SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON SRI.T.N.SUKUMARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 IN THE OP: --------------------------------------------- ------------------------ 1. MRS. V.K. ANANDA VALLY, W/O. THAMPI, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAM P.O., KILIROOR MURI, THIRUVARPPU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THIRUVALLA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.510 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT,J. Claimant is the appellant. Before the Tribunal he claimed compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident which took place on 19.2.1996. He was aged 33 years at the relevant time. He claimed a total amount of Rs.1,86,350/- (after amendment of the claim petition). He had suffered permanent disability also. Medical Board assessed the disability to be 16%. He claimed to be a commission agent (in textile business) earning an income exceeding Rs.4,000/- per mensem. 2. The Tribunal on a consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.53,850/- as per the details given below: 1. Medical expenses : Rs.4,000/- 2. Damage to clothing : Rs. 500/- 3. Pain and suffering : Rs.15,000/- M.A.C.A No.510 OF 2005 2 4. Disability compensation : Rs.30,600/- (1250x12x12/100x17) 5. Loss o income for 3 month : Rs.3,750/- -------------- Total Rs.53,850/- ======== 3. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation. Called upon to explain, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal had grossly erred in the computation of compensation. First of of all, it is submitted that only an amount of Rs.1,250/- has been reckoned as monthly income for the purpose of ascertaining loss of earning as also loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal should have realistically accepted the salary certificate produced by the appellant which shows the monthly income to be more than Rs.4,000/- per mensem. The Tribunal should have noted that the presumption of prudence available to the court under Clause 6 of the Second Schedule itself permitted drawal or an inference that the monthly income of even a non earning person in 1994 is Rs.1,250/-. It is then contended that the assessment of the Medical Board that 16% is the disability suffered was ignored by M.A.C.A No.510 OF 2005 3 the Tribunal and only 12% was reckoned as the reduction in earning capacity. No amount is awarded under the head of loss of amenities, though the Tribunal had itself accepted that 12% disability had resulted. In these circumstances the counsel prays that the compensation may be appropriately enhanced. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. Though we cannot find fault with the Tribunal for not implicitly accepting the salary certificate Ext.A8 produced by the appellant, we are of the opinion that reasonable inferences could have been drawn by the Tribunal on the totality of facts and circumstances. In any view of the matter, even in the absence of any better evidence, we are persuaded to agree that Rs.2,250/- could easily have been accepted as the monthly income of the appellant in 1996. 6. 16% is the disability assessed by the Medical Board as can be seen from Ext.A9. The Tribunal has slashed it to 12%. No satisfactory reasons have been shown. Considering the employment of the appellant as a textile commission agent which work must necessarily involve travelling, we are satisfied that 16% can itself be reckoned as the reduction in earning capacity also. For loss of amenities, no amount has been awarded and we M.A.C.A No.510 OF 2005 4 agree that reasonable amount ought to be awarded as compensation for loss of amenities in addition to the compensation for reduction in earning capacity. 7. We are not persuaded to interfere with the amounts awarded as compensation under any other head. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in addition to the bills produced there were several other expenditure incurred also. In the total absence of any documents we are unable to find fault with the Tribunal for not accepting any higher amount under the head of medical expenses. The entire amount covered by the bill has already been awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the following further amounts as compensation in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal: 1. Loss of earnings : Rs.3,000/-(2250x3 minus 3750) 2. Reduction in earning capacity : Rs.42,840/- (2250x12x16x17/100 i.e., Rs.73,440/- minus Rs.30,600/- =i.e., Rs.42,840/-) 3. Loss of amenities : Rs.10,000/- --------------- M.A.C.A No.510 OF 2005 5 Total Rs.55,840/-. ========= 9. In the result; (a) This appeal is allowed in part (b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs. Rs.55,840/- (Rupees fifty five thousand eight hundred and forty only) in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. (c) We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period directed by the Tribunal. (d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE mns