IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1535 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1920/1998 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ M.SUJITH, S/O.LATE NANU, ROHINI NILAYAM, P.O. MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.3 ------------------------------ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., KANNUR. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/3/09, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1535 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which occurred on 27.01.1998. He was a carpenter, aged 24 years at the time of the accident. Injuries were suffered on the right hand - vital for a carpenter's work. The shaft of right humerus was fractured. There was undisplaced fracture of supra condylar bone of the right humerus. He underwent treatment as an inpatient for a period of 15 days. He had to continue the treatment thereafter. Permanent partial disability was allegedly suffered by him. PW2 - the doctor, had issued Ext.A8 disability certificate to show that he has physical disability of 20%. M.A.C.A. No.1535 of 2004 -: 2 :- 2. Before the Tribunal the claimant examined himself as PW1 and the doctor as PW2. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. 3. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, proceeded to award a total amount of Rs.48,750/- along with interest @ 9% per annum as per the details shown below. i) Transport to hospital: Rs.1,000/- ii) Bystander's expenses: Rs.2,250/- iii) Extra nourishment : Rs.750/- iv) Damage to clothing : Rs.500/- v) Medical expenses (Against bills produced) : Rs.9,250/- vi) Pain and suffering : Rs.12,000/- vii) For discomfort etc. : Rs. 3,000/- viii) Loss of earning capacity (1500 X 17 X 12 X 5/100) : Rs. 15,300/- ix) Loss of earnings : Rs. 4,500/- ................... Total : Rs.48,550/- ======= Rounded off to Rs.48,750/- 4. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned M.A.C.A. No.1535 of 2004 -: 3 :- award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the award on various grounds. 5. First of all it is contended that the quantum of compensation awarded for disability is totally insufficient. Disability to the tune of 20% was certified to have been suffered. PW2 - the doctor, had issued Ext.A8 disability certificate giving the details of the nature of the disability. The disability has been suffered on the right hand. Though the doctor certified the disability to be 20%, the Tribunal did not accept the same. The Tribunal reckoned the disability to be only 5%. Reduction in earning capacity was calculated assuming the physical disability to be 5% only. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has grossly erred in accepting the physical disability and the percentage of reduction in earning capacity to be 5% only. The peculiarities of employment of the appellant as a carpenter where the health and efficiency of the right hand is paramount was lost sight of by the Tribunal, it is contended. The learned counsel then contends that, at any rate, acceptance of only Rs.1,500/- as monthly income of the appellant is not justified. Even in 1994, the law M.A.C.A. No.1535 of 2004 -: 4 :- permits a presumption of prudence that even a non-earning person can be assumed to earn an amount of Rs.1,250/- per mensem. The appellant is a skilled worker – carpenter. He has a stable employment with his employer in a work shop and he claimed an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. In any view of the matter, the monthly income recked by the Tribunal at Rs.1,500/- is unjustified, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The learned counsel finally contends that the disability suffered has impaired and reduced the quality of enjoyment of life which the appellant – a 24 year old young man can aspire to live hereafter. Going by the longevity of an average Indian, the appellant will have to endure this disability for a period exceeding 4 ½ decades. The award of Rs.3,000/- is totally insufficient under the head of loss of amenities, contends the counsel. 7. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We note that the appellant is a skilled worker – carpenter. We are satisfied that the acceptance of Rs.2,000/- as the multiplicand shall serve the ends of justice eminently. We are further satisfied, considering the nature of disability certified in Ext.A8 and proved by P.W.2, that at least 10% can safely be reckoned as the reduction in earning capacity consequent to the disability M.A.C.A. No.1535 of 2004 -: 5 :- suffered by the appellant. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amounts in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal: 1. Loss or earning (Rs.2,000/- x 3 minus Rs.4,500/-) - Rs.1,500/- 2. Compensation for loss of earning (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 17 x 10/100 i.e, Rs.40,800/- minus Rs.15,300/-) - Rs.25,500/- 3. Loss of amenities (Rs.12,000/- minus Rs.3,000/-) - Rs.9,000/- ----------------- Total - Rs.36,000/- ======= 10. We further direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate directed by the Tribunal from the date of the petition to the date of payment. 9. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. R. BASANT (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) Nan/ M.A.C.A. No.1535 of 2004 -: 6 :- M.A.C.A. No.1535 of 2004 -: 7 :-