IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1419 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.676/2009 of II ADDL. M.A.C.T., KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- K.P.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.MUHAMMED KOYA, AGED 41 YEARS, K.P.HOUSE, CHALIL PADAM, O.K.ROAD, THIRUVANNOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SATHRACK SALVARAJ.J., S/O.JAPAMANI NADAR, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VELLALANPILLA KONPALATH PARAMBA, THURAVANOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (R.C.OWNER OF THE OMIN VAN BEAING REGN.NO. KL-11-X-6791). 2. JERISH.C.V., S/O.JANASRDHANAN, AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHALATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, CHERUVANNOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, (DRIVER OF THE CAR BEARING REGN. NO.KL-11-X-6791). 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (INSURER OF THE CAR BEARING REG.NO.KL-11-X-6791). BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE. FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1419 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 15.2.2007. He had suffered multiple injuries including fractures. He was an inpatient for a period of 12 days. He had permanent disability which was assessed under Ext.C1 to be 54%. The Tribunal accepted the same. Against the total claim of Rs.6 lakhs (as amended) the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.2,99,110/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 13 of the impugned award which we extract below. Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded Rs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Transport to Hospital 750.00 2. Extra nourishment 1,000.00 3. Loss of earnings 6,000.00 4. Bystander's expenses 1,200.00 5. Treatment expenses and future treatment 5,000.00 6. Pain and suffering 13,000.00 7. Permanent disability (3000 x12 x 14 x 54/100) 2,72,160.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL Rs. 2,99,110.00 ========================================= The insurance company is made entirely liable under the impugned M.A.C.A.No.1419 of 2011 2 award to satisfy the award. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The learned consel for the appellant assails the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant raised two specific grounds. First of all, it is contended that the appellant, a manual labourer, was earning a much higer amount, but the Tribunal had reckoned only Rs.3000/- as the monthly income. This is insufficient and not fair, contends counsel. Even if it were assumed that the present earnings as on the date of the accident is Rs.3,000/-, following the dictum in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 (6) SCC 121) adequate provision for future increase in prospectus and employment should have been provided. Of course, the appellant is not a person with stable employment, but even then appropriate provision for future increase in wages should have been made. We find merit in that contention. We are satisfied that while ascertaining the quantum of compensation for reduction in earning capacity, Rs.3250/- can be reckoned as the multiplicand. The learned counsel for the appellant M.A.C.A.No.1419 of 2011 3 then points out that 14 has been accepted as the multiplier. The appellant is a person in the age group of 40-45 years and going by the II schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 15 is the multiplier to be adopted while ascertaining the quantum of compensation payable consequent to permanent disablement. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though 54% disability is accepted by the Tribunal, no compensation has been awarded under the head loss of amenities. Physical disability suffered by the person is bound to leave behind two fold reflections on his life. It reduces the earning capacity and it also reduces the quality of enjoyment of life which the appellant can aspire to lead thereafter for the entire rest of his life. We are satisfied that compensation deserves to be awarded for that dimension of the loss suffered by the appellant. Taking all the relevant circumstances – including the extent of disability and the age of the claimant, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.30,000/- can be fixed as the quantum of compensation for loss of amenities. 5. We are not persuaded to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded under any other heads. M.A.C.A.No.1419 of 2011 4 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.73,740/- as compensation as shown below in addition to the amount amount awarded by the Tribunal. 1. Reduction in earning capacity (3250 x 12 x 15 x 54/100 = 3,15,900 – 2,72,160) Rs. 43,740.00 2. Loss of amenities (No amount has been awarded by the Tribunal) Rs. 30,000.00 TOTAL Rs. 73,740.00 7. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that proportionate cost has not been awarded as per the dictum in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943) and only an amount of Rs.850/- has been awarded as cost. We direct that proportionate cost on the entire amount of compensation for the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be paid to appellant as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). 8. In the result:- a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.73,740/- (Rupees seventy three thousand seven hundred and M.A.C.A.No.1419 of 2011 5 forty only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; 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) The proportionate cost for the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be awarded on the entire of amount of compensation calculated as per the dictum in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj. R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.2165 of 2011 in M.A.C.A.No.1419 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th of November, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed to condone the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. 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 to satisfy the award. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.