IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1854 of 2006 ----------------------- ( OPMV.2791/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR ) APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- SHAIJU. C.V., S/O.VASU, RESIDING AT CHIRAYATH HOUSE, P.O. CHEROOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R ADV. SRI.JIBU P THOMAS ADV. SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRAKASAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PRAMEELA NIVAS, MAKKADA MURI, KAKKEDI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. SOMAN NAIR, S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ANIL BHAVAN, PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. R4 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ........................................................................ M.A.C.A. No. 1854 OF 2006 ......................................................................... Dated this the 13th 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.10.23 lakhs as compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 15/6/2001. The accident and insurance coverage were admitted. The appellant examined himself as PW1 and a Doctor as PW2. Exts.A1 to A16 and X1 were marked. There was complete loss of vision of one eye. An artificial eye was implanted. The medical board assessed the disability to be 35%. The Tribunal accepted the same. As per details shown in the impugned award, a total amount of Rs.4,23,200/- was awarded as compensation. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. 2. Called upon to explain the precise nature of the M.A.C.A. No. 1854 OF 2006 2 challenge against the quantification made by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant wants to assail the compensation awarded under two specific heads. He had suffered disability and 35% is the extent of disability suffered by the appellant on account of the accident and the same has been accepted by the Tribunal. But the Tribunal went absolutely wrong in reckoning the monthly income of the appellant, a gold worker at Rs.2,000/- only. He had claimed that his income was Rs.7,500/-. He had produced his identity card issued by the Gold Workers' Association, to confirm such employment. He had also produced Ext. A14 income tax receipt to assume that he had paid an amount of Rs.1200/- as income tax on 08.07.1999. He further produced Ext. A13 pan card. The voucher reveals that the appellant had paid an amount of Rs.1,200/- as income tax for the assessment year 1999-2000. As stated earlier, the accident took place on 15.06.2001. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it was extremely M.A.C.A. No. 1854 OF 2006 3 unnecessary and improper for the Tribunal to reduce the income for the purpose of assessment of compensation to Rs.2000/- per mensem. In the totality of the circumstances, the claim that the appellant was earning an income of Rs.7,500/- per month must have been accepted by the Tribunal, contends the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal was not reasonable and just in reckoning the compensation payable for the loss of amenities of life and impairment in the quality of life which the appellant can aspire to live, at Rs.20,000/- only. In addition to the complete loss of vision of one eye, he has also suffered physical disability and restriction in movement of right knee and ankle . At any rate, the amount awarded at Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities is not fair, just and reasonable, contends the learned counsel. 4. We have rendered our anxious consideration to the inputs available before us. We find merit in the challenge raised M.A.C.A. No. 1854 OF 2006 4 by the learned counsel. We are satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, where the appellant is shown to be an income tax assessee who has paid Rs.1,200/- as income tax payable for a period long prior to the date of the accident, it would be absolutely reasonable to reckon his monthly wages as Rs.5,000/-. The appellant is consequently entitled for an amount of Rs.2,26,800/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty six thousand and eight hundred only) (5000 x 12 x 18 x 35/100 minus 2000 x 12 x 18 x 35/100) more as compensation under the head-'loss of earning power' consequent to physical disability 5. The 29 year old appellant had suffered loss of vision of one eye and had to implant an artificial eye. In addition to this, minimal physical injuries of the knee and ankle were also suffered. We are satisfied that he is, at any rate, entitled for a further amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) (Rupees thirty thousand in all ) as compensation for loss of amenities/enjoyment of life. M.A.C.A. No. 1854 OF 2006 5 6. The appellant is thus entitled for a total further amount of Rs.2,36,800/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty six thousand and eight hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. Interest shall be payable as directed by the Tribunal on the entire amount from the date of the petition as directed by the Tribunal 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. R. BASANT, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk