IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1839 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.1742/2000 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- MATHEW ANTONY, MATHICHIPARAMBIL VEROOR.P.O, CHETHIPPUZHA, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOCHAHAMMED MYTHEEN, VALIYAPARAMBIL, PEZHAKKAPPILLY, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 2. SIBICHAN.T.M, THAKIDIYEL HOUSE, VERROOR. 3. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOLENCHERRY BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2009, THE COURT ON 11/03/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.1839 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed an amount of Rs.1,82,500/- as compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 16.03.2000. He was aged 44 years on the date of the accident. He was employed as Cashier-clerk with a private employer and as per Ext.A10 salary certificate he was earning an income of Rs.5,000/- per mensem. The appellant suffered multiple fractures - fracture of osteophyte of the 6th vertebra (cervical vertebra) and fracture of coronoid process of ulna left. He was treated with cervical traction and cervical collar. The injury had allegedly left behind permanent physical disability which was assessed at 8% by the doctor under Ext.A9. He was an inpatient for 17 days in 4 spells, the last of such discharge being on 18.04.2001, the accident having taken place on M.A.C.A. No.1839 of 2005 2 16.03.2000. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW1. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. 2. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of an amount of Rs.50,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as per the details shown below: i) Loss of earning : Rs.10,000/- (2,500 X 4) ii) Transport to hospital : Rs.1,000/- iii) Medical bills : Rs.8,000/- (against actual bills produced) iv) Bystander's expenses: Rs.1,500/- v) Pain and suffering : Rs.5,000/- vi) Loss of earnings : Rs.18,000/- (2,500 X 12 X 15 X 4/100) vii) Disability and loss of amenities : Rs.7,000/- (4,000 + 3,000) ...................... Total : Rs.50,500/- ...................... 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which M.A.C.A. No.1839 of 2005 3 the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. This is grossly inadequate. Relying on precedents it is contended that interest must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The learned counsel next contends that though Ext.A10 salary certificate shows a monthly income of Rs.5,000/- per mensem, the Tribunal reckoned the monthly income at an unreasonably low and meager amount of Rs.2,500/- per mensem. The counsel contends that it may be taken note of that the appellant was employed as Cashier-clerk with a private employer. He was aged 44 years. It is very unlikely that he would have worked for a monthly salary of Rs.2,500/-. Reasonable enhancement deserves to be granted in reckoning the monthly income, contends the learned counsel. In the circumstances of the case taking note of the totality of inputs, we are satisfied that monthly income if reckoned at Rs.3,000/- per mensem would be absolutely reasonable. The appellant will be M.A.C.A. No.1839 of 2005 4 entitled to the advantage of this upward revision under the heads of loss of earning and loss of earning capacity. 5. The counsel contends that the Tribunal was in error in not accepting 8% as the disability suffered. The Tribunal scaled down the extent of disability from 8% certified in Ext.A9 to 4%. This has resulted in injustice, it is contended. We have been taken through Ext.A9. We note that the alleged disability is “complaint of pain neck and numbness of both upper limbs due to Secondary Cervical Spondylosis”. The percentage of disability had been assessed at 8%. Even assuming that the physical disability can be reckoned at 8%, considering the nature of the employment of the appellant and the extent of physical disability, we are satisfied that reckoning the loss of earning capacity at 4% does not warrant any appellant interference. 6. The counsel contends that for pain and suffering, an unreasonable low amount of Rs.5,000/- has been accepted by the Tribunal. Counsel points out that the appellant was in hospital for a period of 17 days in 4 spells, spreading over a period of more than one year, ie. from 16.03.2000 to 18.04.2001. We find merit in the contention that the amount awarded under the head M.A.C.A. No.1839 of 2005 5 of pain and suffering is not adequate. We are satisfied that award of an amount of Rs.15,000/- under this head shall serve the ends of justice. The appellant, aged 44 years has suffered disability without any dispute. Considering the nature of disability and the period of time for which the appellant will have to endure such disability and consequent impairment in the quality of his life, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- in all (Rs.8,000/- more) can be awarded under the head `loss of amenities'. 7. It falls from the above discussion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amounts in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal. i) Loss of earnings : Rs.2,000/- (3000X4 minus 10000) ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/- more (15,000 minus 5,000) iii) Loss of earning capacity : Rs.3,600/- [(3000 X 12 X 15 X 4/100) minus 8,000] iv) Loss of amenities : Rs.8,000/- [15,000 minus (4,000 + 3,000)] ................. Total : Rs.23,600/- ................ (Rupees Twenty three thousand and six hundred only) M.A.C.A. No.1839 of 2005 6 9. We further direct that the entire amount of compensation shall bear interest @ 7.5% from the date of the petition till payment. 10. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-