IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 78 of 2005() --------------------- OPMV.1951/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT. ----------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NORTH PARAVOOR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, RGIONAL OFFICE, AJAY VIHAR, KOCHI - 16. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS. --------------------------- 1. LOOSY PALLIKUDIYAN, D/O. KANNAN, THEKKAN HOUSE, MATTOOL P.O., MATTOOL SOUTH,KANNUR. 2. T.S.NIRMALA, D/O. SUMITHRAN PAUL, -DO-. ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN FOR R1 & R2 SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R1 & R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.78 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Insurer is the appellant. Claimants claimed an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for injuries suffered by the 1st claimant as a result of the accident which took place on 10.07.1998. A total amount of Rs.5 lakhs was claimed. While the claim filed by the 1st claimant was pending, he expired on 17.05.99. His legal heirs - wife and daughter came on record as additional petitioners 2 and 3. They contended that the death was on account of the injury suffered in the accident. Deceased, the 1st claimant had suffered head injury, fracture of the thorasic spine and multiple fracture of the ribs. He had become paraplegic as a result of the accident. He was an inpatient for a period of about 150 days. He was aged between 65-70 years. By occupation he was a fisherman. He had continued to be paraplegic till the date of his death. The Tribunal had before it the oral evidence of the third additional petitioner, the daughter of the deceased-1st claimant and Exts.A1 to A7. The Tribunal M.A.C.A. No.78 of 2005 2 proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of a total amount of Rs.2,09,000/- as per the details which are given in para.11 to 18. 2. The appellant/insurer contends that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive. It is submitted at the Bar that the requisite permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was granted to the appellant by the Tribunal. 3. What precisely is the grievance of the appellant ? We note that amounts have been awarded under the following heads. i) Medical Expenses : Rs.65,000/- (against bills for actual expenses produced) ii) Damage to clothing : Rs.1,000/- iii) Extra nourishment : Rs.10,000/- (inpatient for about 5 months, lived thereafter for 5 months as a paraplegic) iv) Transport to hospital : Rs.3,000/- (He was an inpatient in 2 hospitals for 5 months in all) v) Bystander expenses : Rs.10,000/- vi) Loss of earnings : Rs.20,000/- (10 X 2000) vii) Pain and suffering : Rs.35,000/- M.A.C.A. No.78 of 2005 3 viii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.25,000/- ix) Shortened expectation of life : Rs.50,000/- .................. Total : Rs.2,09,000/- 4. The Tribunal found that there was no specific evidence to establish the nexus between the accident and death. The Tribunal evidently found it difficult to compute the quantum of compensation payable for the disability suffered. Was only disability suffered by him on account of the accident ? Or, was death the result of the accident ? It is in this dilemma that the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- calling the same as the total amount payable under the head of loss of amenities and shortened expectation of life. It does not require the wisdom of Solemn to assume and presume in the facts and circumstances of this case that death 10 months after the accident of the deceased was accelerated by the accident even if the death is not the direct consequence of the injury. He was continuing treatment in the hospital for 5 months and continued to be a paraplegic on account of the injury suffered in the accident till the date of his death. He is entitled to compensation for reduction in earning M.A.C.A. No.78 of 2005 4 capacity and loss of amenities of life if it were assumed that the accident had resulted only in injuries and disability to him. On the contrary if it were to be assumed that the injuries had resulted in death, the compensation must be computed and awarded under the head of loss of dependency. Faced with this dilemma, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.75,000/-. If Rs.2,000/- were reckoned as the monthly income and the applicable multiplier (5) is reckoned, compensation for loss of dependency would be Rs.80,000/- (2,000 X 12 X 2/3 X 5). On the contrary if the injury suffered were to be reckoned only as resulting in permanent complete disablement, the 1st claimant would have been entitled to an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (2000 X 12 X 5). It is in these circumstances the Tribunal chose to award only a total amount of Rs.75,000/- calling the same as compensation payable for loss of amenities and shortened expectation of life. We are satisfied that the amount awarded under that head, by whatever name it is called, is absolutely reasonable and does not at any rate warrant interference. 5. Interest is seen awarded @ 9% per annum. We must take note of the fact that the accident had taken place on 10.07.1998. Notwithstanding the fact that the percentage of M.A.C.A. No.78 of 2005 5 interest payable by banks etc. had fluctuated during the period, we find no reason to interfere with the award of interest @ 9% by the Tribunal. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the impugned award does not warrant any interference. We must say that in coming to this conclusion the satisfaction that justice has been done by the impugned award has weighed with us heavily. 7. In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-