IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 948 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.443/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- E.PRADEEP, S/O.VENUGOPAL, 28 YEARS KAIRALI, PO.PARAPPANANGADI, VIA., TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- 1. K.MOHAMMEDALI, W/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, PANDARANGADI, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM 2. MOHAMMED PANDIKASALA, S/O.ALIKUTTY KALIKKOLKUNDU, KADAPPADI, PERUVALLOOR PO PIN-673688 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., SHAFEER COMPLEX, 6/975, OPP.Y.M.C.A.KANNUR ROAD, CALICUT PIN-673001 ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE FOR R3 SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- C.M.Application No.975 OF 2008 & M.A.C.A.No.948 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 O R D E R/J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 48 days in filing an appeal. Service is complete. Heard. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. M.A.C.A.No.948/08 2. Injured/claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of injuries suffered in a motor accident on 28.3.2006. He had suffered injuries including two lacerated injuries on the forehead and lower lip. His teeth were affected. Four teeth on the upper jaw on the front (2,1/1,2) had to be removed. He was an in-patient for two days – 28.3.2006 and 29.3.2006. He was employed as a Clerk and claimed that he earns an income of Rs.4,000/- per mensem from such employment. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- as compensation as per the details shown below: M.A.C.A.NO.948/08 -2- Transport to hospital : Rs. 500/- Damage to clothing : Rs. 500/- Expenses of bystander : Rs. 200/- Medical bills : Rs.15,200/- Extra nourishment : Rs. 1,500/- Loss of income : Rs. 4,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs. 8,000/- Loss of amenities : Rs. 5,000/- ------------------- Total : Rs.34,900/- Rounded to : Rs.35,000 ======== 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amounts awarded under all heads are not adequate and sufficient. Called upon to be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded for the loss of four teeth. The appellant is a person aged 28 years. The Tribunal had not realistically taken into consideration the nature of the loss suffered by him. Dentistry may have advanced. But that is not a reason not to award adequate compensation for the loss suffered by the appellant on account of loss of four teeth on the upper M.A.C.A.NO.948/08 -3- jaw front at such early age of 28 years, contends the learned counsel. 4. The Dental Surgeon had assessed the disability to be 5%. That can only be reckoned as Dental Surgeon's assessment of functional disability. The same cannot be reckoned as reduction in earning capacity, at any rate. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the contention that the multiplier-multiplicand method must have been used to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable on the ground of physical disability. 5. However, we are persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded under the head of loss of amenities as the total compensation for loss of the four teeth on the front upper jaw is sufficient and reasonable. We are persuaded to agree that a total amount of Rs.20,000/- must have been awarded under this head taking into account the number of teeth, the location of the said lost teeth and the age of claimant. 6. Even though attempt is made to assail the impugned award granted under the other heads, we are satisfied that the amounts awarded are fair and reasonable and the same do not M.A.C.A.NO.948/08 -4- warrant upward modification in this appeal. Even though it is claimed that monthly income was Rs.4,000/- and that he had been involuntarily unemployed for a period of two months on account of such involuntary unemployment, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rs.2000 x 2) as the loss of income. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the said amount awarded is adequate. We find no reason why he should have been involuntarily unemployed for a period of two months on account of such injuries. We note that the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that there is no precise and authentic evidence about the nature of employment and the quantum of income. We take the view that the amount of Rs.4,000/- under this count is reasonable. 7. In the result: (a) this appeal is allowed in part. (b) the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.20,000/- minus Rs.5,000/-) (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. (c) Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest from the date M.A.C.A.NO.948/08 -5- of the petition to the date of payment at the rates awarded by the Tribunal. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn