IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 271 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.670/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- ROY GEORGE,VADAYAPRAMPIL (H),NAZRETH HILL, KLALATHOOR. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.TOMY SRI.MATHEW SKARIA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. E.T.JAYAN,ELAVUNKALMURIYIL(H),CHERUVALLY P.O. 2. K.G.SOMAN,KOLLAMALA(H),VAYALIPADY, CHERUVALLY P.O. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MANJIRAPPALLY. ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.A.SALIM FOR R1 & 2 SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 SRI.A.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.271 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 01.03.2003. He was aged 40 years on the date of the accident. He claimed to be an electrician/electrical contractor as also a pine apple farmer. His monthly earning/income, it was asserted, was Rs.5,000/-. He suffered multiple fractures including fracture of the lower end of right radius, fracture of the lateral tibial condyle, comminuted fracture of tibial condyle and colles fracture (right). He was an inpatient for the period 03.02.2003 to 11.02.2003. He was taken to 3 hospitals. He staked his claim for an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs as compensation. According to him, he had suffered permanent partial disability which was certified to be 7% as per Ext.A8. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked and no oral evidence was adduced before the Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal considered the materials placed before it and came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a M.A.C.A. No.271 of 2007 2 total amount of Rs.66,200/- as per the details shown in para.12 of the award which is extracted below: i) Medical expenses : Rs.22,700/- ii) Loss of earnings : Rs. 5,000/- (2000 X 2 ½) iii) Bystander expenses : Rs. 1,500/- iv) Extra nourishment : Rs. 250/- v) Damages to clothing : Rs. 250/- vi) Transport to hospital : Rs. 1,500/- viii) Pain and suffering : Rs.12,000/- ix) Permanent partial disability : Rs.18,000/- (2000 X 12 X 15 X 5/100) x) Loss of amenities : Rs.5,000/- ................. Total : Rs.66,200/- ................. Interest was directed to be paid @ 7.5% per annum. 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of grievance, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the Tribunal erred in reckoning the multiplicand only at Rs.2,000/- per mensem. Counsel relies particularly on the electrical contractor licence issued to the appellant as Ext.A10 as also M.A.C.A. No.271 of 2007 3 Ext.A13 national trade certificate issued to him. Counsel contends that though better materials have not been made available to prove his precise income, taking note of the relevant inputs, the Tribunal have accepted a higher amount of monthly earnings. This inadequacy gets reflected in the computation of compensation both under the heads of loss of earning as also the loss of earning capacity. Counsel, in these circumstances, prays that the multiplicand may be suitably enhanced and the amounts awarded under the above 2 heads may be modified. 4. We note that even in the absence of better evidence indications are available to arrive at the probable monthly income of the appellant. It is very clear that for absence of authentic, cogent and acceptable data, it is only the claimant who claims relief who will have to suffer. But all the same the absence of crisp and precise data cannot persuade the Tribunal to throw its hands up. On the available materials it is perfectly permissible for the Tribunal to draw reasonable inferences to discharge its primary duty of rendering justice - awarding just compensation to the claimant. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied on the available materials that the appellant's monthly income can safely be reckoned at Rs.3,000/-. M.A.C.A. No.271 of 2007 4 5. Counsel contends that the physical disability certified by the Doctor at 7% in Ext.A8 was not as such imported while ascertaining the compensation payable for loss of earning capacity by the multiplicand-multiplier method. Only 5% has been accepted as the reduction in earning capacity. The counsel argues that the entire 7% may be reckoned as the percentage of reduction in earning capacity. 6. We have been taken through Ext.A8. We are satisfied that physical disability has been suffered. The extent of physical disability is not synonymous with reduction in earning capacity. Physical disability suffered by a person will have reflections on the earning capacity as also on the quality of enjoyment of life. It would be idle to assume that in all cases the extent of physical disability can be equated to the extent of reduction in earning capacity. In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the nature of injuries and the alleged disability as also the nature of employment of the appellant, we are of the view that the course adopted by the Tribunal - not accepting 7% as such shown in Ext.A8 as the reduction in earning capacity and reckoning only at 5% as the reduction in earning capacity, is M.A.C.A. No.271 of 2007 5 absolutely justified and the same does not, at any rate, warrant appellate interference. 7. Thirdly it is contended that for loss of amenities only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. Ext.A8 shows and we are convinced that physical disability has been suffered. That physical disability will have reflection on the quality of life which the appellant can aspire to enjoy for the rest of his life. He is shown to be of aged 40 years and going by the longevity of the average Indian he will have to suffer the impairment of the quality of enjoyment of life for a further period of about 3 decades. We are satisfied that Rs.5,000/- deserves upward modification. Award of an amount of Rs.12,500/-, we are satisfied, would be eminently reasonable. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.19,000/- in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. i) Loss of earnings : Rs.2,500/- [(Rs.3,000/- X 2 ½ months) minus Rs.5,000/-) ii) Loss of amenities : Rs.7,500/- (12,500 minus 5,000) M.A.C.A. No.271 of 2007 6 iii) Compensation for reduction in earning capacity : Rs.9,000/- [(3,000 X 12 X 15 X 5/100)minus 18,000] .................. Total : Rs.19,000/- more .................. (Rupees Nineteen thousand only) 9. Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation shall bear interest from the date of the petition at the rate awarded by the Tribunal. 10. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-