IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1254 of 2011(A) ----------------------- OPMV.873/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANTS : -------------- 1. ABRAHAM @ AVARACHAN,S/O.YOHANAN, THAVARKODU PADINJATTATHILVEEDU, KOTTAVATTAM P.O, VIA ELAMPAL. 2. CHINNAMMA, W/O.ABRAHAM @ AVARACHAN, THAVARKODU PADINJATTATHILVEEDU, KOTTAVATTAM P.O, VIA ELAMPAL. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. SYAMALA SATHYAPALAN, W/O.SATHYAPALAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAKIDAM,EZHUKONDE P.O, KOTTARAKKARA 691 508. 2. SATHEESH, S/O.SATHYAPALAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAKIDAM,EZHUKONDE P.O, KOTTARAKKARA 691 508. 3. UMESH, S/O.SATHYAPALAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAKIDAM,EZHUKONDE P.O, KOTTARAKKARA 691 508. 4. ROY THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS NADIKONATHU KIZHAKATHIL VEEDU, VATTAPARA,KOTTAVATTAM P.O, VIA ELAMPAL 691 508. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD PULAMON P.O, KOTTARAKKARA 691 531. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1254 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He staked claim for compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 23.06.2005. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of the upper tibia and fracture of spine (T11 vertebra). He was an inpatient for a period of 30 days. He had allegedly suffered permanent disability which has been assessed under Ext.A10 disability certificate to be 10%. That is accepted by the Tribunal also. 2. Against a total claim of Rs.4 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.64,920/- as per the details given in para.8 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Loss of earning Rs.12,000.00 (2000X6) 2 Transport to hospital and back Rs. 2,500.00 3 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,500.00 4 Damage to clothing and other articles Rs. 500.00 M.A.C.A No.1254 of 2011 2 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 5 Cost of medicine and bystander's expenses Rs. 7,017.00 (4767 - bills produced plus 2250 – 30X75) 6 Compensation for pain and sufferings Rs.15,000.00 7 Compensation for continuing or permanent disability & compensation for the loss of earning power Rs.26,400.00 Total Rs.64,917.00 Rounded to Rs.64,920.00 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Quantum of compensation is the only dispute in this appeal. 4. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits first of all that the monthly income of the appellant/injured reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per mensem is grossly inadequate. The accident was in June, 2005. The appellant was an agriculturist. As an able bodied agriculturist, even without any better evidence, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the monthly income to be at least Rs.3,000/- as claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal was not justified in not accepting that fair and reasonable assertion by the appellant. We agree with the learned counsel for the M.A.C.A No.1254 of 2011 3 appellant. We take note of the presumption of prudence available from 1994 under clause 6 of the Second Schedule. We take note of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa V. State of Bihar [AIR 2001 SC 3218] and Laxmi Devi & Ors. V. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr. [2008 ACJ 1488]. We direct that Rs.3,000/- be reckoned as the monthly income. This will have reflections on the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings as also the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity. 5. 10% has been certified to be the physical disability by the doctor in Ext.A10 certificate produced by the appellant. He is shown to be aged 52 years and 11 has rightly been reckoned as the multiplier by the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant then submits that under the head of loss of amenities, no amount whatsoever has been awarded. We find merit in the challenge raised on that ground. Physical disability suffered by a person leaves behind two fold reflections on the life of that person. It reduces earning capacity. It also reduces and impairs the quality of enjoyment of life which the victim can aspire to lead. For this dimension of the loss suffered, certainly compensation is liable to be granted. We M.A.C.A No.1254 of 2011 4 take into account all dimensions of the loss resulting from physical disability except the reduction in earning capacity which is already compensated by the award of the amount by the multiplier-multiplicand method under the head of loss of earning capacity. For all other dimensions of loss resulting from physical disability, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded. 7. Though the learned counsel for the appellant challenges the amount awarded under every other head, we are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves or warrants interference. 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]. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.44,200/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. i) Loss of earnings Rs.6,000/- [Rs.18,000/-(Rs.3,000/- x 6) minus Rs.12,000/-] ii) Reduction in earning capacity Rs.13,200/- [Rs.39,600/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 11 x 10/100) minus Rs.26,400/-] M.A.C.A No.1254 of 2011 5 iii) compensation for loss of Rs.25,000/- amenities (all dimensions - no amount awarded by the tribunal) ----------------- Total Rs.44,200/- ======= 9. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) Appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.44,200/- (Rupees forty four thousand two 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 on the entire amount of compensation as per the decision in Jeena (Supra). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) M.A.C.A No.1254 of 2011 6 rtr/jsr