IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1457 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.2046/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- SUDHEESH RAJ, S/O.SREEDHARAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GEORGE, S/O.INASU, KOKKAT HOUSE, RAPPAL, PARAPPOOKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, ALENGADAN BUILDING, TANA, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. GINSON, KOKKAT HOUSE, RAPPAL, PUDUKKAD P.O., THRISSUR. (RESPONDENT NO.1 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT MADE RESPONDENT HEREIN, SINCE NO RELIEFS IS CLAIMED AGAINST HIM). ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA FOR R1,3 SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1457 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed an amount of Rs.4,26,000/- as compensation for personal injuries suffered by him as a result of the accident which took place on 29/11/1999. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,48,000/-. 2. The appellant was aged 35 years. He was allegedly working as a sales representative of a tobacco wholesale business man. He was allegedly earning an income of Rs.4165/- per mensum as per Ext.A13 certificate issued by the employer. He had suffered multiple fracture. Fracture of tibia and fibula, dislocation and fracture of left scapula bone, fracture of radius right, fracture of ulna right are major injuries suffered. He was an in-patient of the Medical College Hospital for three spells for a total period of 90 days. His disability was assessed by the Doctor in Ext.A12 disability certificate at 30%. The appellant examined himself as PW1. Exts.A1 to A16 were marked on his side. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the M.A.C.A.No.1457/05 2 relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.1,48,000/- as per the details shown below: Loss of earnings Rs.20,000/- (Rs.2,500 x 8) Medical and Miscellaneous expenses (against bills Rs.12,000/- produced) Pain and suffering Rs.12,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.8,000/- Loss of earning capacity consequent to disability Rs.96,000/- (2,500 x 12 x 16 x 20/100) Total Rs.1,48,000/- 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain the precise nature of challenge which the learned counsel for the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/- is not justified. There was no reason to reject Ext.A13 salary certificate which shows the income to be Rs.4160/- per mensum, contends the counsel. Author of Ext.A13 has not been examined. According M.A.C.A.No.1457/05 3 to us, the Tribunal did not commit any error warranting appellate interference for not swallowing Ext.A13 which was not strictly proved. Reckoning the monthly income of Rs.2,500/- per mensum, does not, in these circumstances, appear to be unreasonable or unjust. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that, at any rate, the acceptance of only 20% as the physical disability is not justified. We have been taken through the disability certificate Ext.A12 in detail. Instances of impairment of physical faculties is narrated in detail on 15 specific aspects in Ext.A12. Of course, the Tribunal was correct in taking note of the fact that the appellant had not chosen to examine the author of Ext.A12. But all the same, the Tribunal was satisfied that there was disability. We have no semblance of doubt in our mind that the appellant has suffered disability. The short question that arises in our mind is whether the Tribunal is justified in reducing the percentage of disability fixed by the doctor at 30% to 20%. To ascertain the quantum of compensation payable for reduction in earning capacity, physical disability can only be an indicator. We are satisfied, considering the nature of the disabilities narrated that the percentage of disability can safely M.A.C.A.No.1457/05 4 be reckoned at 25%. The appellant will consequently be entitled for a further amount of Rs.24,000/- i.e. (2,500 x 12 x 16 x 25/100 minus 96,000). 5. The learned counsel for the appellant then submits that the compensation awarded for loss of amenities at Rs.8,000/- is totally insufficient. The physical disability suffered by the appellant must necessarily have a reflection on the quality of enjoyment of life by the appellant for the reminder of his life. The Tribunal was not realistic and reasonable in awarding only an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation under this head, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. In the circumstances of this case, considering the age of the appellant at the time of the accident as also the nature of the disability narrated in Ext.A12, we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that award of an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of amenities would be totally justified. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.12,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and a further amount of Rs.24,000/- under the head of reduction in earning capacity M.A.C.A.No.1457/05 5 consequent to disability as detailed above. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. It is submitted that interest must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum as already accepted in several binding precedents. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. In the result, a) This M.A.C.A is allowed. b) The impugned award is modified. c) It is directed that the appellant shall be entitled to a further amount of Rs.36,000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand only) along with interest on the entire amount of compensation @7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. Directions regarding cost and disbursement of the amount are also upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.1457/05 6 M.A.C.A.No.1457/05 7 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009