IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1596 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1173/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- G.NELLY, S/O. VAYYAPURI, AGED 58 YEARS, CHERIYA KANNAYI VAYAL, KALLAI POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. ABDUL KHADER, S/O. AHMAD KOYA, KANDIYIL HOUSE, PALATH POST, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICE, WOOD WORKSHOP BUILDING, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE. 3. S.P.SATHEESH, S/O.PARASURAM MASTER, SATHI NIVAS, PAKKAM POST, VAZHAVATTA, KALPETTA, WYNAD. 4. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MANNEL SONS BUILDING, G.H. ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1596 of 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. The appeal arises from OP(MV) 1173/1996 of the MACT, Kozhikode, which was filed seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident occurred on 27.03.1996. 2. The appellant was travelling as a passenger in the bus bearing No. KL 12/2777 from Kozhikode to Vythiri. When the bus reached at Padanilam, a lorry bearing No. KL 11/1449 which was coming in the opposite side collided with the bus, causing serious injuries to the claimant leading to amputation of the right hand, which led to the claim attributing rash and negligent driving on the drivers of both the vehicles. 3. The claim petition was filed, initially seeking for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was later sought to be enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-. No oral evidence was adduced from either side and the only evidence consists of Ext.A1 to A38 produced from the part of the claimant and Ext.C1 report of the Medical Board. The case of the claimant was that MACA No. 1596 of 2004 2 he was a coolie, having a monthly income of Rs.150/- per day; that he had just crossed the age of 50 years and that he had sustained permanent disability of 50% as certified by Ext.A5 disability certificate. 4. The claim was resisted from the part of the insurers of both the vehicles on different grounds, also disputing the negligence. After evaluating the facts and figures, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was because of the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles; thus casting the liability in the ratio of 50:50. 5. It was observed by the Tribunal that absolutely no evidence was adduced from the part of the claimant to prove the age, occupation or income. Placing reliance on the entries in the medical records and also on the police records produced before the Tribunal, it was observed that the claimant’s age was 70 years and thus adopted the multiplier of ‘5’. Even in the absence of any evidence as to the occupation or income, the Tribunal chose to reckon Rs.15,000/- as the notional income. Reckoning the entire extent of 50% as certified by the Medical Board, the compensation payable in respect of the permanent disability was worked out as Rs.37,500/- (15,000 x 5 x 50/100). The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injuries caused to the claimant were very much serious which led to amputation of the right hand. The appellant was MACA No. 1596 of 2004 3 treated as an inpatient for 17 days in the hospital, followed by nearly three months of rest, despite which no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal towards the temporary loss of earning. Learned counsel also submits that the compensation of Rs.8,000/- towards the loss of amenities awarded is also very much on the lower side. 6. As noted hereinbefore, nobody was examined from the part of the claimant and no legally acceptable evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to substantiate the age, occupation or income; under which circumstance, the finding and reasoning given by the Tribunal for reckoning Rs.15,000/- as the annual income and for adopting the multiplier of ‘5’ (the claimant being above the age of 60 years) are perfectly in order; which does not call for any interference. In respect of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant as to the inadequacy of compensation towards the loss of amenities as well as for non granting any compensation towards the temporary loss of earning, this Court finds that a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded to the appellant towards the ‘temporary loss of earning’ in respect of the period of more than three months, during which the appellant was made to remain in the hospital and at his home, taking rest, pursuant to the amputation of the right hand. MACA No. 1596 of 2004 4 7. Obviously, the nature and extent of injuries leading to amputation of the right hand stands rather admitted. This being the position, this Court can very well visualize the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life in the case of the such persons and accordingly, we refix the amount payable under this head as Rs.25,000/-. After giving credit to the amount of Rs.8,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to get the balance sum of Rs.17,000/- which will make the total amount payable as balance compensation at Rs.22,000/-. The said amount shall be satisfied with interest at the rate of 7% per annum by the insurers of both the vehicles, i.e., 2nd as well as 4th respondents and it shall be deposited equally, before the Tribunal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No cost. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dnc