IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 MACA.No. 1134 of 2004(D) ------------------------------------- [O.P(MV).NO.1615/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA] .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(M.V): ------------------------------------------------------- MEENKSHI, W/O. SUBRAMANIAN, NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAPOOKKARA VILLAGE AND POST, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY, SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V): ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.T. AHMED KASSIM, THATHATHATHIL HOUSE, VARODE P.O., OTTAPALAM. 2. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, ALIKKALKATTIL HOUSE, PILATHARA PULINCHODE P.O., AMBALAPPARA, PALAKKAD. 3. MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PALAKKAD. 4. M.V. MOHAMMED SUHAIB, MYLADY HOUSE, KURICHENKULAM P.O., KALLEKKAD, PALAKKAD. R3 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE, R4 BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.1134 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. The appellant suffered the following injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on July 15, 2000: 1. Major crush injury left foot with soft tissue loss beyond mid tarsal level with total amputation of all toes beyond DIP Joint level. 2. Toes are avulsed beyond distal phalangeal joint and are present in the avulsed skin flap. 3. The transverse arch is split open between the first and second meta tarsal. 4. The skeleton of all toes are exposed. 5. Fracture meta tarsals 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th 6. Comminuted fracture 5th metatarsal. 7. Multiple phalangeal fracture. 2. She claimed compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. She was examined as PW1 and the doctor who issued Exhibit A11 disability certificate was examined as PW2. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant and directed the insurance company to pay the same with 9% interest. The said award is impugned in this appeal contending inter alia that the impugned award is too M.A.C.A. No.1134 of 2004 2 meagre and inadequate. 3. Exhibit A11 certificate will reveal that the Doctor, (PW2) had assessed the disability of the appellant as 30%. But, while awarding compensation under the head of disability, the Tribunal has taken the notional monthly income of the appellant, who was stated to be a manual labourer, as only Rs.1,000/-. The accident occurred in the year 2000. In our view, a manual labourer would have been able to earn at least Rs.2,500/- per month during that period. In that view of the matter the notional income of the appellant is taken as Rs.2,000/-. The multiplier applicable in the case of the appellant, she being 62 years at the time of accident is 12, as correctly taken by the Tribunal. The compensation under the head of disability can be recalculated thus: 2500 X 12 X 12 X 5/100 = 18,000/- 4. The tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. In our view the appellant has to be awarded Rs.20,000/-under this head. The tribunal has M.A.C.A. No.1134 of 2004 3 reckoned loss of earnings for 6 months @Rs.1,000/-. Since we have taken the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2,000/- the compensation payable under this head would come to Rs.12,000/-. In all other respects the award passed by the tribunal is sustained. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. Sd/- P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. Figure “Rs.2,000/-” occurring in line 10 and figure “12” occurring in line 12 of paragraph 3 are corrected and substituted as “` 2,500/-” and “5” respectively. The calculation of compensation occurring in paragraph 3 is substituted as “` 2500 X 12 X 5 X 30 = ` 45,000/-”, vide 100 order dated 28/06/2011 in I.A. 1617/2011 in M.A.C.A. No. 1134/2004. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) rkc