IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 136 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.1866/1993 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): --------------------- JANARDHANAN @ MOHAN, S/O. SANKARAN, RESIDING AT PADINJARE VEETTIL HOUSE, P.O. KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.PRINCE.K.ELIAS SRI.R.RAJA RAJA VARMA SMT.M.R.VALSA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. AMBIKAVATHY, W/O. GOVINDANKUTTY, RESIDING AT NAGATH HOUSE, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. P.G. MANI, S/O. GOPALAN, RESIDING AT PUNNAKKAL HOUSE, PANDIKADAVU, MANGALAM DAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PALAKKAD. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.136 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT Basant,J. C.M. Appl. No.193 of 2003: This petition is to condone the delay of 1120 days in filing the appeal. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. Appropriate stipulations shall be made when we proceed to consider the appeal and deliver judgment. M.A.C.A.No.136 of 2003: Heard. Admitted. Respondents are served. Petition to condone the delay has already been allowed. 2. The claimant is the appellant. He is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to him for loss suffered by him on account of injuries in a motor vehicle accident. As against a total claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, only an amount of Rs.67,000/- was awarded with interest and costs. 3. There is no representation for the respondents. The insurer was made liable by the Tribunal. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant/claimant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the M.A.C.A. No.136 of 2003 -: 2 :- appellant submits that the appellant will be satisfied if the gross anomaly committed by the Tribunal while computing the multiplicand for ascertaining the compensation for loss of earning capacity is rectified. 4. The Tribunal accepted Rs.1,800/- per mensem to be the income of the injured/claimant. The Tribunal accepted 20% as the personal reduction in earning capacity. The Tribunal reckoned 16 as the multiplier applicable. But the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the monthly earnings allegedly towards the personal expenses of the injured. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/claimant was an automobile technician. He is a mere wage earner. He does not incur any expenditure in connection with his employment. In these circumstances, the deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal expenses is not justified at all. The concept of deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of a victim has relevance only when such victim is no more and the legal heirs/dependents stake the claim. Ordinarily, in employments which do not involve any special personal expenditure for the employee in connection with his employment, deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses while computing the compensation payable for personal injury is M.A.C.A. No.136 of 2003 -: 3 :- unjustified, contends counsel. 6. We have considered the contention anxiously. We do not propose to lay down a rigid or unexceptional proposition that no amount can ever be deducted towards the personal expenses of an injured when compensation for loss of earning capacity is ascertained by the multiplicand multiplier method. It is not impossible to perceive a case where to earn income that he gets an employee may be constrained to expend money or purchase articles in connection with his employment. Such rare classes of cases apart, we find no reason why in an employment like the instant one any amount can or ought to be deducted towards personal expenses of an injured disabled workman. 7. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses is not justified. That error will have to be corrected. 8. We do, in these circumstances, hold that the claimant/ appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.23,040/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand and forty only) as per the details shown below: Loss of earning capacity (1800 x 12 x 16 x 20/100 i.e., Rs.69,120/- minus Rs.46,080/- ) - Rs.23,040/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand and forty only) M.A.C.A. No.136 of 2003 -: 4 :- The 3rd respondent shall be liable to pay the said amount also to the appellant. 9. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) In addition to the amount ordered by the Tribunal, the appellant will be entitled to receive from the 3rd respondent a further amount of Rs.23,040/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand and forty only) along with interest and costs as directed already. 10. We do however make it clear that the amount hereby enhanced shall not carry any interest for the period of delay in filing this appeal for 1120 days. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge