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. 240 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.2654/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- CHAMI, S/O. AYYAPPAN, MANAKKALTHODI HOUSE, VELATHOOR, NILAYAMKODE, P.O. VELATHOOR, VIA. PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. NOUSHAD ALI, S/O. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, ALIKKAL HOUSE, P.O. KODUMUNDA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SREE NARAYANA TOURIST BUILDING, P.B.NO.42, GURUVAYOOR. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 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.240 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. The claimant a person aged 52 years was allegedly employed as a manual labourer. According to him he was earning an income of Rs.4,500/- per mensem. He suffered the accident on 11.11.2000. He had suffered injuries including fracture of the malleolus. He had suffered fracture of skull and fracture of teeth. Other external injuries were also suffered. He was an inpatient for a period of 53 days. He had allegedly suffered physical disability as a result of the accident. 2. Before the Tribunal Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. The claimant examined himself as PW1. 3. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.39,700/- as per the details given in para.10 which we extract below: M.A.C.A. No.240 of 2008 2 i) Loss of earning : Rs.10,000/- (2000 X 5) ii) Expense for transportation : Rs.1,000/- iii) Expense for extra nourishment : Rs.1,000/- iv) Damage to clothing : Rs.500/- v) Expense for treatment : Rs.2,200/- vi) Expense for bystander : Rs.3,000/- vii) Compensation for pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/- viii) Compensation for loss of amenities : Rs.7,000/- ix) Compensation for discomfiture : Rs.5,000/- ............... Total : Rs.39,700/- ................ The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest @ 7% per annum. 4. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that M.A.C.A. No.240 of 2008 3 monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- is not sufficient and proper. We are unable to agree. On the materials available, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has committed no error in drawing the presumption of prudence that the appellant must have been earning at least an amount of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. Better evidence was not made available and the Tribunal's finding cannot be faulted as unreasonable or improper. 5. The counsel then contends that the appellant was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient for 53 days and expenses for the bystander is limited to Rs.3,000/-. The counsel further contends that only Rs.2,300/ is awarded for expenses for treatment. Even in the absence of vouchers and bills produced, reasonable inferences must have been drawn and the Tribunal should not have insisted that every expense must be supported by voucher. Reasonable inferences taking into account the totality of circumstances can and ought to be drawn, it is submitted. The total amount of Rs.6,200/- awarded for extra nourishment, expenses for treatment and expenses for bystander (1,000 + 2,200 + 3,000) is grossly inadequate and it may be modified, it is urged. We find merit in this contention. We look at the period of hospitalisation. We feel that appropriate M.A.C.A. No.240 of 2008 4 reasonable inferences about the probable expenditure must have been drawn. In these circumstances we are satisfied that under those heads put together, an amount of Rs.8,000/- can safely be fixed as the compensation payable under those heads. 6. The counsel contends that the compensation awarded under the pain and suffering is not sufficient. But we are not satisfied that Rs.10,000/- awarded under the above head does warrant appellate interference taking into consideration the nature of injuries, period of hospitalisation etc. 7. The next grievance of the appellant is about the refusal of the Tribunal to award any amount as compensation for reduction in earning capacity. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the disability certificate produced as Ext.A7 was not properly considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal erred in assuming that the disability at 15% was certified by the doctor in Ext.A7 merely because of the injury to the tooth suffered by the appellant. We have been taken through Ext.A7. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. We have been taken through the injuries suffered as also the treatment rendered as also the details given in Ext.A7. We are convinced - even the Tribunal appears to have been so convinced, as judged from the fact that a total amount of M.A.C.A. No.240 of 2008 5 Rs.12,000/- has been awarded under the heads of loss of amenities and discomfiture that permanent disability was suffered by the appellant. Though the appellant has suffered some disability precise quantification becomes difficult and in a case like this, we have no hesitation to agree that the appellant must have examined the doctor who issued Ext.A7. But that inadequacy does not persuade to throw overboard the case of disability advanced by the appellant. We are satisfied that the irreducible minimum disability which must have been suffered by the appellant can be taken into consideration and appropriate compensation awarded by adopting the multiplier-multiplicand method. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that 8% can safely be reckoned as the irreducible minimum amount of reduction in earning capacity. Appropriate compensation under that head can be worked out. The appellant would consequently be entitled to an amount of Rs.21,120/- [ie. 2000 X 12 X 8/100 X 11]. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following amounts in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A. No.240 of 2008 6 i) Compensation for reduction in earning capacity consequent to physical disability : Rs.21,120/- more (no amount awarded) (2000X12X8/100X11) ii) Medical and miscellaneous expenses : Rs.1,800/- (8,000 minus 6,200) ................. Total : Rs.22,920/- ................ (Rupees Twenty two thousand nine hundred and twenty only) 9. Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation shall bear interest from the date of the petition at the rates directed by the Tribunal. 10. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-