IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 MACA.No. 1026 of 2006() ----------------------- APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- ULAHANNAN THOMAS, KONICKAL HOUSE, KEZHUVANKULAM.P.O, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.JOSEPH PAZHEPARAMBIL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. AUGUSTINE, KARIMTHAKARACKAL HOUSE, MUTHOLY.P.O, PULIYANNOOR KARA. 2. BIJUMON ANTONY, VETTIKATTUKUNNEL, MUTHOLY.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADDL. 4. TOM MATHEW, PUTHENVAYALIL HOUSE, CHENGALAM, ANICADU, KOTTAYAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON 16/06/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1026 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd September, 2011. J U D G M E N T Basant, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident, which took place on 30.12.2001. He was an inpatient for the period from 30.12.2001 to 8.1.2002. He had suffered injuries to the cervical spine. He had suffered permanent disability. A doctor certified the extent of physical disability to be 12%. The Tribunal did not accept the same, as the doctor was not examined. The Tribunal, however found that he is entitled for compensation for loss of amenities. He was aged 42 years and was a businessman by avocation. The Tribunal, by the impugned award directed payment of a total amount of Rs.43,093/- as compensation, as per the details given below: (1) Loss of earnings - Rs.4,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 2 months) (2) Pain and suffering - Rs.15,000/- (3) Transport expenses - Rs.250/- (4) Damage to clothing - Rs.250/- (5) Bystander's expenses - Rs.500/- (6) Extra nourishment - Rs.250/- (7) Medical expenses - Rs.7,843/- MACA 1026/06 2 (8) Loss of amenities - Rs.15,000/- -------------------- Total - Rs.43,093/- ========= 2. Claiming to be aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant has preferred this appeal. There is no representation for the appellant. On an earlier occasion, at the request of the counsel for the appellant, the appellant was referred to the Medical Board and the Medical Board at the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam has submitted a report to this Court, which shows that the appellant had suffered physical disability to the tune of 10%. MRI spine showed multiple level cervical IVDP, as a consequence of the injuries suffered. 3. Notwithstanding the fact that the appellant is not represented by counsel, we have gone through the entire facts and circumstances. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, Sri.A.R.George has helped us to correctly understand the facts. We have considered the challenge raised MACA 1026/06 3 in the memorandum of appeal. 4. The appellant was a 42 year old businessman. The accident had taken place on 30.12.2001. The Tribunal, in the absence of better evidence, had reckoned his monthly income to be Rs.2,000/-. We find that the challenge raised on this ground is satisfactory and justified. We are satisfied that Rs.3,000/- can safely be reckoned as the monthly income. In coming to this conclusion, we take note of the presumption of prudence under Clause (6) of II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. We also take note of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 S.C.3218) and Lakshmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar (2008 ACJ 1488), wherein, the Supreme Court has held that even a non-earning housewife, as also an unskilled manual worker can safely be assumed to earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. 5. The appellant was an inpatient for a period of 9 days. He had suffered fairly serious injuries. Only a total amount of Rs.1,250/- has been awarded under the composite head of transport expenses, damage to clothing, bystander's MACA 1026/06 4 expenses and extra-nourishment. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.3,000/- can safely be fixed as the total amount of compensation payable under these heads. 6. For pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.15,000/- and for loss of amenities of life, a further amount of Rs.15,000/- has already been awarded by the Tribunal. We are of the opinion that the said amounts awarded by the Tribunal do not warrant interference, by invoking the appellate jurisdiction vested in us under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. However, we find merit in the grievance raised that no amount has been awarded under the head of reduction in earning capacity. The certificate furnished to this Court by the Medical Board clearly shows that 10% physical disability has resulted. The materials produced before the Tribunal also indicated that there was 12% disability at that time. We are satisfied that 10% disability can safely be accepted. In the absence of any better evidence, we are satisfied that the reduction in earning capacity can also be safely assumed to be 10% itself. The multiplier-multiplicand method has to be MACA 1026/06 5 pressed into service. For the appellant aged 42 years, '14' is the multiplier specified in the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2010(2) KLT 802 (SC)] . We are satisfied that the appellant is entitled for compensation for reduction in earning capacity. 8. The above discussions led us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.48,750/- as compensation as per details shown below, in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. (1) Loss of earnings - Rs.5,000/- (3 x Rs.3,000/-, i.e., 9,000 - 4,000) (2) Compensation for transportation, damage to clothing, bystander's expenses and extra-nourishment - Rs.1,750/- (3,000-1,250) (3) Compensation for reduction in earning capacity - Rs.42,000/- (2,500 x 12 x 14 x 10/100) (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) Total = Rs.48,750/- 9. We are not persuaded to agree that the amounts awarded under any other head deserves enhancement/ modification. MACA 1026/06 6 10. In the result : (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.48,750/-, 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 specified by the Tribunal. (d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs Paragraph 8(3) of page 5 of the judgment dated 22.09.2011 in M.A.C.A.1026/2006 is corrected and substituted as : “(3) Compensation for reduction in earning capacity (3000x12x14x10/100) (no amount awarded by the MACA 1026/06 7 Tribunal) - Rs.50,400/- Total - Rs.57,150/-” Clause (b) of paragraph 10 at page 6 of the judgment is corrected and substituted as : “(b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.57,150/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.” vide order dated 17.01.2012 in I.A. 132/2012 in M.A.C.A. 1026/2006. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)