IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 1715 of 2007(F) ----------------------- OPMV.363/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- ABDULRAHMAN, S/O ALAVI RAVUTHAR, AGED 52 YEARS, VEEMBANKUZHIKUNNATH HOUSE, CHRUMUNDASSERY, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 -------------------------------- 1. T.M.UMMER, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, THEKKINIMADAM, THOTTAKARA POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED ASHARAF, S/O SAIDALAVI, AGED NOT KNOWN, CHEKIDAMPARAMBIL, POOLAKUNDU, OTTAPALAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., OTTAPALAM. ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1715 of 2007-F ***************************** Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered in a motor accident which took place on 06.12.2004. He was aged 50 years. He claimed that he was earning Rs.200/- per day as a coolie. He was an inpatient for 6 days from 09.12.2004. The accident led to loss of vision of one eye. The extent of disability was assessed by the Medical Board at 30%. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, directed payment of an amount of Rs.1,00,181/- as compensation as per the details which are given in para.14 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl.No. Heads of award Amounts awarded 1 Medical expenses Rs. 5,581.00 2 Bystander's expenses Rs. 900.00 3 Travelling expenses Rs. 2,500.00 4 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,500.00 5 Damage to clothes Rs. 500.00 6 For disability (3000X2/3X12X11X30/100) Rs. 79,200.00 7 Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000.00 Total Rs.1,00181.00 M.A.C.A No.1715 of 2007-F 2 2. The amount was directed to be paid along with interest @ 6% per annum if the amount is not paid within a period of 30 days from the date of the award. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on the sole ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 4. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the Tribunal erred grossly in deducting 1/3 of the amount from his monthly earnings while calculating compensation for reduction in earning capacity (described merely to be disability in the award). The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in a case of permanent partial disablement, there is no logic in deducting 1/3 of the amount towards the personal expenses of the victim. The victim has to continue to live. For that, personal expenses will have to be incurred. The methodology of deducting 1/3 is adopted in a death case because no personal expenses will have to be incurred by the deceased after his death. That logic/reason cannot be applied in a case for permanent disablement of a living M.A.C.A No.1715 of 2007-F 3 person. We completely agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In the absence of any better reason, deduction of 1/3 from the personal earnings of a coolie while assessing compensation for permanent disablement is unjustified. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the Tribunal has erred grossly in not directing payment of any amount under the head of loss of amenities. Physical disability suffered by a person has two fold reflections on his life. It reduces his earning capacity. It also impairs and reduces the quality of enjoyment of life of the victim. For both dimensions of loss, compensation is liable to be granted. The Tribunal in this case has awarded compensation only for reduction in earning capacity by employing multiplier-multiplicand method. No amount has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. Under this head, compensation has to be provided for impairment in the quality of enjoyment of life, reduction in life expectancy and for all disability, inconvenience and discomfiture which the appellant will have to endure for the rest of his life. We are satisfied that an appropriate amount deserves to be awarded separately under the heads of loss of amenities. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that M.A.C.A No.1715 of 2007-F 4 the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.59,600/- as shown below in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) Loss of earning capacity : Rs.39,600.00 [3000X12X11X30/100 = 1,18,800 minus 79200] ii) Compensation for loss of amenities - all dimensions (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) : Rs.20,000.00 ------------------ Total : Rs.59,600.00 ======== 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no interest has been awarded from the date of the claim to the date of the award. The direction is only that interest at 6% will be payable if the amount is not paid within a period of 30 days from the date of the award. The learned counsel argues and we agree that there is no reason to support the rejection of the claim for interest pending the proceedings. We further agree that interest awarded at 6% is grossly insufficient. We are satisfied that interest can be ordered to be paid at 7.5% per annum. 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 M.A.C.A No.1715 of 2007-F 5 Rs.Rs.59,600/- (Rupees Fifty nine thousand and six hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition to the date of payment/realisation; d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/