IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1191 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.244/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- MUSTHAFA MANHA, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM, C/O.K.P.KUNHAMINA, NAFEESATH MAHAL, THANKAYAM MUKKU, P.O.TRIKARIPUR, HOSDURG, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT: 3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 1191 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant is an unfortunate victim of a motor accident. The question to be considered in this appeal is about the correctness of the award passed by the Tribunal, in so far as it relates to the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We are disposing of the appeal itself on merits, on consent. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that this is a case, where the appellant has become invalid. The appellant claimed compensation on the basis that he was a decorator, with an earning capacity of M.A.C.A.No. 1191 of 2006 2 Rs.15,000/- p.m. The Tribunal found that the appellant has 100% disability and awarded Rs.4,97,000/- with 9% interest in all. The break up of the compensation awarded is as follows. Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- Disability compensation Rs.2,88,000/- Towards future treatment Rs. 30,000/- Medical bills Rs.1,00,000/- Loss of earnings Rs. 9,000/- Towards bystander's expenses, Transportation and extra nourishment Rs. 20,000/- --------------- Rs.4,97,000 ========= 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amount awarded towards disability is too meager. He complains that there is no warrant for not awarding Rs.1,87,000/- towards medical expenses and limiting the compensation to Rs. 1 lakh. No amount is awarded towards M.A.C.A.No. 1191 of 2006 3 loss of amenities, it is contended. He would further contends that Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards bystander's expenses, transportation, extra nourishment etc. under one common head. The appellant was in the hospital for 261 days. It is also submitted that he has been taken to Nimhans Hospital, Bangalore, on account of the after effect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award. 6. The first question to be considered is what is the amount of compensation to be awarded towards disability. The Tribunal has found that the appellant is totally disabled and loss of earnings has to be treated as full. A multiplier of 16 was adopted and taking the income at Rs. 1,500/- p.m. compensation has been worked out. The learned counsel would contend that the multiplier would be 17 for the age group 33. M.A.C.A.No. 1191 of 2006 4 But, we notice that in the decision of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298) it was observed that the multiplier for the age group 31 to 35 is to be fixed at 16. Therefore, we are not interfering with the multiplier fixed. 7. But, having regard to the date of the accident i.e. 4.11.2000, and the nature of the calling of the appellant, we feel that Rs.2,000/- can be fixed as the income of the appellant. Applying the other components as taken by the Tribunal, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.3,84,000/- under the head compensation for disability. After deducting the amount already awarded, he is entitled to Rs.96,000/- more under the above head. 8. We feel that the appellant should be awarded compensation for loss of amenities. Of course, the learned counsel for the appellant made available some photographs. It M.A.C.A.No. 1191 of 2006 5 would appear that the result of the accident is that the appellant is deprived of the enjoyment of his life and as such interferes with many of the amenities, which a young person of the age 33 could look forward to enjoy. He was married and has two daughters. In such circumstances, we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. 9. As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant, the appellant was in the hospital for 261 days and he was taken to Nimhans Hospital, Bangalore also. Having regard to the condition of the appellant, it would appear that he requires attendance on a permanent basis. If that is so, the amount awarded towards bystander's expenses, transportation, extra nourishment and damage to clothing under one common head can be enhanced and it can be fixed at Rs.40,000/-, which M.A.C.A.No. 1191 of 2006 6 means the appellant is entitled for Rs.20,000/- more under those heads. 10. The appellant is justified in raising a claim for compensation under the head medical expenses. No doubt, the Tribunal has discussed the matter in paragraph 11 of the Award and rejected the same. Portion of the claim of the appellant under the said head was granted. We feel, in the facts of this case, that an amount of Rs.24,000/- more can be awarded towards medical expenses. 11. This is a case where the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards compensation for loss of earnings and at the same time awarded 100% disability compensation, applying the multiplier relevant to his age. Therefore, we feel that the Tribunal may not have been justified in awarding Rs.9,000/- towards loss of earnings. This is an aspect, which we have to bear in mind, when we enhance the compensation. M.A.C.A.No. 1191 of 2006 7 12. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,81,000/- more with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the respondent. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm