IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 2165 of 2005() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1614/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ------------------------------------- VIJAYAN, S/O. BALAN, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, NELLIKODE, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., OTTOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.J.JOHN SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) SRI.K.JACOB ABRAHAM (EKM) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. SAPRU NARAYANAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, ANANDA BHAVAN, KADAVATHVILA, CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM, PALACHIRA P.O. 2. SAJI, S/O. ANANDAN, ANANDA BHAVAN, KADAVATHVILA, CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE, PALACHIRA P.O. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II, ST. MARY VILLA, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2165 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal in O.P.(MV)1614/00. The claimant, a 43 year old Government employee sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.44,600/-. Dissatisfied with the amount the claimant has come in appeal. 2. From the wound certificate the Tribunal found that the injuries sustained are a fracture on the patella with lacerated crush injury on the left little finger and injuries on the left hand and left 4th finger. But when the disability certificate was issued it was pointed out that there is a fracture on the trochantor bone and except the disability certificate there is nothing to show about such a fracture and therefore the Tribunal rightly did not accept the same. The Tribunal only took 6% disability and calculated the compensation. Being a Government servant there will not be M.A.C.A. 2165 OF 2005 -:2:- any actual loss of earnings till he retires. Since the age of retirement is 55 he may do some other work thereafter, for which he has to be compensated. Similarly, from the period of accident till the age of retirement though the earning power is not affected as such but the disabilities and loss of amenities will persist which will cause him difficulties in his day-today life. So I refix the compensation in the following manner under certain heads. 3. It is admitted that his salary was about Rs.4,951/- per month at the time of the accident and he would have been prevented from doing any work for a period of six weeks at least on account of the fracture on the patella. So he must be given a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings and therefore he is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,000/- under that head. It is submitted by the learned counsel that he is a resident of Kallambalam and he was treated in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram which was also 60 km. away from that place and he has visited the hospital on more than four M.A.C.A. 2165 OF 2005 -:3:- occasions. Considering that aspect an amount of Rs.1,500/- is claimed which appears to be reasonable and therefore I enhance the compensation by Rs.1,000/-. The Tribunal took the disability percentage at 6%, fixed the income at Rs.2000/- and applied a multiplier of 15 which appears to be incorrect. Till the age of 55 there is no loss of earnings and therefore it is not fair enough to have a multiplier of 15 in this case. Considering the nature I fix the disability at 7% and presume that he would have earned Rs.2,500/- after retirement and applying a multiplier of 8 he will be entitled to a compensation of Rs.16,600/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.21,600/- which is in excess by Rs.5,000/- but the Tribunal has not given any amount for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life especially from the date of accident till the retirement also. So I feel this is a case where an amount of Rs.7,000/- is to be awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life which means Rs.2,000/- more has to be granted towards that head. Therefore the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.7,000/-. M.A.C.A. 2165 OF 2005 -:4:- In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.7,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-