IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1466 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.345/2009 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ MUHAMMAD KABEER, S/O.ALIKOYA, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.T.HOUSE, KALLIKUNNU P.O., OLAVANNA KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT KRISHNASRUTHI, P.O.CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 686 002 2. BABU C., S/O.VELU, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHERATTU HOUSE, KADALUNDI, KOTTAKADAVU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 673 007. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., 1ST FLOOR, POOTHERY BUILDING, MARKET ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 673 008 ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R3 SRI.RAJIT FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.11.2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 1466 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Claimant is the appellant. He, a 22 year old sales man in a private concern claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 09.07.2008. He had suffered injuries including fracture on both bones of his right leg. He was inpatient during the period from 09.07.2008 to 13.07.2008. Against the claim of Rs. 2 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.1,52,996/- as per the details given in paragraph 8 of the impugned award which we extract below. Sl.No. Head of claim Amount claimed Amount awarded 1 Loss of earning 30,000/- 2,500/- 2 Transport to hospital 2,000/- 1,000/- 3 Extra nourishment 2,000/- 1,000/- 4 Damage to clothings and other articles 1,000/- 750/- 5 Treatment expenses 45,000/- 246/- 6 Pain and sufferings 30,000/- 12,000/- 7 Bystander's expenses Nil 500/- 2 MACA No. 1466/2011 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount claimed Amount awarded 8 Permanent disability 70,000/- 1,35,000/- (2500 x 12 x 18 x 25/100) 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company which has been made entirely liable under the impugned award. Challenge is raised only against quantum of compensation awarded. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in reckoning only Rs.2,500/- as the monthly income. The accident took place in 2008 and even in the absence of any better evidence the Tribunal must have made reasonable assertions about the quantum of income of the appellant who was employed as a sales man in a private shop. We take note of the presumption under clause 6 of the second schedule which has remained in force from 1994. We are satisfied even in the absence of any better evidence Rs. 3250/- can be reckoned as the monthly income of the claimant. 4. Loss of earning has been awarded only for a period of one month. We are satisfied considering the nature of injuries 3 MACA No. 1466/2011 that the appellant must have been involuntary unemployment for a period of two months. 5. The Tribunal accepted that there was disability to the tune of 25%. Consequent reduction in earning capacity was reckoned at 25%. '18' was accepted as the multiplier. Learned counsel for the insurance company points out that going by the second schedule to the MV Act '17' ought to have been taken as multiplier. We agree with the learned counsel for the insurance company. 6. Though the Tribunal accepted 25% to be physical disability, no compensation has been under the head of loss of amenities. Physical disability suffered by a person has two fold reflections on his life. It reduces the earning capacity; it also impairs and reduces the quality of enjoyment of life. In this case the appellant was aged about 22 years. The appellant is certainly entitled to be compensated for loss of amenities consequent to the physical disability. We fix the compensation at Rs.25,000/-. 7. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of 4 MACA No. 1466/2011 Rs. 59,750/- (Rupees Fifty nine thousand seven hundred and fifty only) as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the tribunal as per details shown below. 1. Loss of earning (3250 x 2 months, i.e., : Rs.4,000/- 6,500 minus 2500) 2. Loss of amenities (no amount awarded : Rs.25,000/- by the tribunal) 3. Reduction in earning capacity (3250 x 12 x 17 x 25/100, i.e., : Rs.30750/- 1,65,750 minus 1,35,000) ----------------- Total : Rs. 59,750/- ======== 8. We are not persuaded to interfere with the compensation awarded under any other head. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant argues and we agree that proportionate costs ought to awarded on the entire amount of compensation in the proceedings before the tribunal as held in Jeena Vs. Satheesh Babu K. [[2011 (3) KLT 943]. Only an amount of 1,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal. 10. In the result 5 MACA No. 1466/2011 a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs. 59,750/- (Rupees Fifty nine thousand seven hundred and fifty only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the tribunal. c) We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the tribunal in the impugned award. d) We direct that proportionate cost be paid in the proceedings before the tribunal for the entire amount of compensation to the appellant as held in Jeena Vs. Satheesh Babu K. [[2011 (3) KLT 943]. e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R. BASANT JUDGE V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE dnc