IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1517 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.97/2006 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT: -------------- MUKUNDAN.V, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, PRIVATE SECURITY, RESIDING AT CHELLATH HOUSE, KURICHIYIL P.O, PUNNOOL, THALASSERY. BY ADV. JRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN SMT.DIVYA K.NAIR RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. A.K.RASHEED, AGED 23, S/O.ALI, ARAYAKKALATHIL KUNIYIL HOUSE, PANNIYANNOR AMSOM, CHAMPAD.P.O, THALASSERY. 2. MARIYAM P., W/O.IBRAHIM, RESIDING AND VEDAKKANDI BITHOOR, CHAMPAD P.O, THALASSERY. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT ROAD, KANNUR, PIN-670702. ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SMT.S.JAYASREE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1517 of 2011 ***************************** Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 19.10.2005. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture on the left tibia and fibula. He was an inpatient in 2 hospitals for a total period of 13 days. He underwent surgical procedures under general anaesthesia. He suffered permanent disability as a result of the accident. The extent of personal disability was assessed under Ext.X1 by a Medical Board and it was found that he has 8% physical disability. The same was accepted by the Tribunal to be the extent of reduction in earning capacity also. The appellant was aged 60 years and was employed as a Security Guard. It is asserted that his monthly income is Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal accepted only Rs.2,500/- as the monthly income. Against a total claim of Rs.1.5 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.57,100/- as compensation as per the details given in the summary of claims furnished in para.13 of the impugned award, which we extract below: M.A.C.A No.1517 of 2011 2 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Loss of earning Rs. 5,000.00 2 Transport to hospital Rs. 600.00 3 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000.00 4 Medical expenses Rs.22,000.00 5 Pain and sufferings Rs. 8,000.00 6 Permanent disability Rs.19,200.00 (2500X12X8X8/100) 7 Bystander's expenses Rs. 1,300.00 Total Rs.57,100.00 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company, which has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. Challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the monthly income of the claimant was wrongly reckoned as Rs.2,500/- by the Tribunal. The accident had taken place on 19.10.2005. Even for an unskilled manual worker, following the dictum in Laxmi Devi & Ors. V. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr. [2008 ACJ 1488], Rs.3,000/- can safely be assumed to be the monthly income. We agree with the learned counsel. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.3,000/- can be reckoned as the monthly income. M.A.C.A No.1517 of 2011 3 4. For pain and suffering, only an amount of Rs.8,000/- has been awarded. Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment and the nature of procedures undergone, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can safely be fixed as the quantum of compensation. 5. For loss of amenities, no compensation has been awarded. Physical disability suffered by a person leaves behind two fold reflections. It reduces the earning capacity. It also reduces and impairs the quality of enjoyment of life which the victim can aspire to lead thereafter. Considering the age of the appellant and the nature of physical disability, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.12,000/- can be awarded as the compensation for loss of amenities. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.23,840/- as compensation as shown below in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) Loss of earnings : Rs.1,000.00 (3,000 X 2=6,000 minus 5,000/-) ii) Pain and sufferings : Rs. 7,000.00 (15,000 minus 8,000) M.A.C.A No.1517 of 2011 4 iii) Compensation for reduction in earning capacity : Rs.3,840.00 (3000 X 12 X 8 X 8/100 = 23,040 minus 19,200) iv) Loss of amenities : Rs.12,000.00 (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) ------------------- Total : Rs.23,840.00 ======== 7. We are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded under any other head deserves or warrants interference. 8. In the result: a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.23,840/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand eight hundred and forty only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal; d) Proportionate cost in the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be calculated as held in Jeena V. Satheesh M.A.C.A No.1517 of 2011 5 Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943]; e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE) rtr/