IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 135 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.877/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): /CLAIMANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- K.V.HARIDAS, S/O.K.L.VASU, KONGATH VEEDU, MANKARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. V.R.HARIDASAN, S/O.RAMAN, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, AKAVANDA, MANNUR, PALAKKAD DIST. (DRIVER OF THE BUS BEARING NO.KLG-9111). 2. C.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.K.SREEDHARA PANICKER, KAKKAYAMKOTTAIL VEEDU, AYRANI, KARIMBA, MANNARGHAT(R.C. OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING NO.KLG-9111). 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, MAIN ROAD, MANNARKKAD(INSURER OF THE BUS BEARING NO.KLG-9111. BY ADV. SRI. P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD -R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 135 OF 2006 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in an accident which occurred on 31.1.1995. He had suffered crush injury on the left hand with loss of extensors to all fingers and loss of dorsal cortex of carpel and metacarpal with open carpametacarpal joint. He was an inpatient for a total period of 36 days in three spells. He claimed to be earning an income of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. But Ext.A9 salary certificate produced by him shows that his monthly income is Rs.1,485/-. 2. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as PW.1. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances, came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.98,300/- as compensation as per the details shown below: M.A.C.A. NO. 135/2006 2 i. Transportation charges :Rs. 3,000/- ii. Medical expenses (against bills produced) :Rs.54,000/- iii. Damage to clothing :Rs. 300/- iv. Extra nourishment :Rs. 1,000/- v. Expenses for bystander :Rs. 2,500/- vi. Pain and suffering :Rs.17,500/- vii. Loss of earning :Rs. 8,000/- viii. Compensation for reduction in earning capacity consequent to disability. (1500x12x13x5/100) :Rs.11,700/- :(rounded off to :Rs.12,000/- --------------------- Total :Rs.98,300/- --------------------- This amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on three grounds. First of all, it is M.A.C.A. NO. 135/2006 3 contended that the monthly income of the appellant reckoned at Rs.1,500/- is not fair or reasonable. The monthly income must have been reckoned at least at Rs.2,000/-, contends counsel. The salary certificate produced by the appellant as Ext.A9 showed his monthly income to be Rs.1,485/-. The Tribunal discussed this in paragraph 14 of the impugned award. We find no reason to interfere with the said finding. Secondly, counsel contends that even though the doctor in Ext.A12 disability certificate had certified the physical disability to be 10%, the Tribunal has reckoned reduction in earning capacity only at 5%. It is contended that at least 10% must have been reckoned as reduction in earning capacity. The Tribunal discussed this aspect in paragraph 13 of the award. The appellant is employed as a salesman in a toddy shop. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that in Ext.A12, the percentage of disability is noted with reference to the particular limb alone. The Tribunal took the view that if it is converted into the whole body, 3% can safely be reckoned as the percentage of disability. However, the Tribunal reckoned 5% as the percentage of disability suffered by the appellant. In the nature and circumstances of the case, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the said finding. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant then contends that even though 10% disability was certified by the doctor and 5% disability was reckoned M.A.C.A. NO. 135/2006 4 by the Tribunal as reduction in earning capacity, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head loss of amenities. Counsel argues that the appellant, a 45 year old man, will have to suffer the physical disability and it will adversely affect and impair the quality of enjoyment of life. According to the counsel, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount for loss of amenities. 5. After considering the nature of the disability and the age of the appellant, we are satisfied that there is merit in the contention of the counsel. We are, in the circumstances of the case, satisfied that award of an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of amenities shall eminently advance the interest of justice. 6. Learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal had awarded interest only at the rate of 6% per annum. Relying on precedents, it is contended that interest must have been awarded at least at 7.5% per annum. We agree with the learned counsel. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of amenities. We further direct that the entire amount of compensation shall M.A.C.A. NO. 135/2006 5 carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. 8. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO. 135/2006 6 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.135/2006 JUDGMENT 11th March, 2009