IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 108 of 2003(D) ----------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.1206/1999 OF ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMAMT IN O.P.(MV) 1206/99 OF MACT, ERNAKULAM: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MR.ANTO M., S/O. THOMAS, ERIKKALAVAM HOUSE, PUTHIYA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O., KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.K.JANARDHANAN, ADV. SRI.MANURAJ. K.J. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN THE CLAIM CASE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SIRAJUDDEEN M.M., HIBATHUL JAWAD, KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. IKBAL S/O. HAMSA, MULLASSERRY VEETTIL, KUNNEPARAMBU BHAGAM, VAZHAKKALA. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH TRIPOONITHURA. ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R3. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.108 OF 2003 ------------------------------------- Dated 9th July, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . The unfortunate appellant in this case sustained very serious injuries in a motor accident at the age of 32 on 26th March, 1999. He claimed a compensation of Rs.10,01,000/=. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.5,75,000/=. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. As a result of the accident, he had fracture, dislocation of 11th and 12th thorasic vertebra with paraplegia. He was completely bed ridden. As per Ext.A7 certificate, his disability assessed was 100% and he was unable to do any work. The Tribunal accepted the disability certificate and granted compensation for 100% disability, but, only Rs.2,000/= was taken as the monthly income. The claimant was a mason by profession. He claimed that his daily income was Rs.200/= per day. It is true that no evidence was adduced to show his income. Even an unskilled worker would have got at least Rs.100/= per day in Kerala in 1999. The claimant was a mason. He will get 25 days' work in a month. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have assessed at least Rs.2,500/= as the monthly income. The Tribunal fixed only 15 as the multiplier. The claimant was aged 32 at the time of the accident and he is still alive. He MACA.108/2003 2 has to look after his family and he has to suffer the difficulties till the end of his life. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Supe Dei and others v. M/s.National Insurance Company Ltd. and another (JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 451), held that second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, though framed for the purpose of calculating compensation under section 163-A, can be served as a guideline for determination of compensation under section 166 also. In A.P.S.R.T.C. v. M.Pentaiah Chary (2007 AIR SCW 5689), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that except in exceptional cases, second schedule can be taken as a guideline. The poor bed ridden man has to suffer the difficulties till the end of his life. The family members, his wife and children also became completely hapless due to the accident caused to him at the young age of 32. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have fixed 17 as the multiplier, taking guideline from the second schedule. If that be so, compensation payable for 100% disability will be Rs.5,10,000/= (2500 x 12 x 17). The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3,60,000/= for permanent disability and consequential loss of earning power. Therefore, the additional compensation payable under this head will be Rs.1,50,000/=. The Tribunal found that the claimant has to engage a servant to look after him throughout his life and at the rate of Rs.200/= per month for 10 years, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.24,000/=. It is contended that for MACA.108/2003 3 a bystander to be engaged, one has to expend at least Rs.1,500/= per month with food and a bystander has to be engaged till the death of the claimant. Therefore, Rs.24,000/= awarded for bystander's expenses is very low. However, we are of the opinion that considering the interest payable on the total amount, the claimant will be able to maintain the bystander also and we see no ground to enhance the compensation payable for bystander's expenses. Therefore, the additional compensation payable will be Rs.1,50,000/=. The above amount should be deposited by the third respondent insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit, over and above the decreed amount by the Tribunal. Out of the above amount, Rs.1,50,000/= should be deposited as fixed deposit allowing the appellant to withdraw the quarterly interest thereof. However, interest on the additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/= as on the date of deposit, shall be disbursed to the claimant. The appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks