IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1988 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.132/1995 of II ADDL. M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT -------------------------------- K.V.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.K.CHINNAN, KALAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, KAPPIKAD, KOTTANAD POST, MEPPADI, WYNAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. E.AMSA, S/O.KUNHAYAMU, EROTH HOUSE, CHEMMANIODE POST, MALAPPURAM. 2. K.K.SAIDALAVI, S/O.UMMEELKUTTY KAVILKUNNU HOUSE, EDAPPARA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. 3. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE; WHITE LINES BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident, which took place on 06/11/1994. He had suffered fracture of both bone lower 1/3rd of right forearm. He was an inpatient for a period of 14 days. He suffered disability to the extent of 7% as ascertained by a medical board to which the appellant was referred to. The Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs.45,800/- as compensation as per the details given below: Disability : Rs.16,800/- (Rs.1,250/- x 12 x 16 x7/100) Pain and suffering : Rs.17,000/- Loss of amenities : Rs.8,000/- Other counts : Rs.4,000/- ---------------------- Total Rs.45,800/- ========= M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 2 2. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company have been heard. The challenge against the impugned award is only on the ground of inadequacy of the quantum of compensation. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.1,250/- is grossly inadequate. The appellant was an electrician earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem, it is contended. No better evidence has been addduced at all. The tribunal, in the absence of any better evidence, proceeded to assume that the monthly income must have been Rs.1,250/-. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a person aged above 40 years and in any view of the matter, the tribunal had grossly erred in reckoning the monthly income as Rs.1,250/- only. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the tribunal has omitted to award any amount under the head of loss of earnings. The appellant must have been involuntarily unemployed for a long period of time because of the injuries and treatment. We agree with the learned counsel that appropriate amount of compensation deserves to be awarded under the head of loss of earnings. M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 3 Disability to the extent of 7% is accepted by the tribunal. However, the tribunal did not realistically quantify the loss of amenities. Only an amount of Rs.8,000/- has been awarded. The same deserves to be modified, contends the counsel. We agree. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance company alertly points out that the appellant had described himself to be a person aged 46 years in 1995 when the claim was filed. The tribunal, for inexplicable reasons, by looking into the wound certificate etc. assumed the age of the appellant to be 40 years and thus committed the error of reckoning 16 as the multiplier. Going by the dictum in Sarla Verma v. D.T.C [(2009)6 SCC 121], for a person like the appellant who was admittedly 46 years old when the claim was lodged, only 13 should have been taken as the multiplier, contends the learned counsel for the Insurance company. We agree. We are not satisfied that amount awarded under any other heads deserves upward modification/enhancement. 5. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.16,040/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 4 1. Compensation for loss of earnings Rs.4,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 2) 2. Compensation for reduction in Rs.5,040/- earning capacity [Rs.21,840/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 13 x 7/100) minus Rs.16,800/-] 3. Loss of amenities (all dimensions) Rs.7,000/- (Rs.15,000/- minus Rs.8,000/-) ------------------ Total Rs.16,040/- ======= 6. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.16,040/- (Rupees sixteen thousand and forty only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the tribunal. 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) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 5 M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 6 M.A.C.A.No.1988 of 2005 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010