IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1521 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.2225/2000 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT: --------------------------------- K. AJAYAKUMAR, S/O. KOCHU RAMAN, ORAPPANPARACKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SINDHU SOMAN, W/O. K.M. SOMAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL,CHUNGAPPARA P.O., MALLAPPALLY. 2. SIJU, S/O. SREEDHARAN, PARASUKALLUMURIYIL,EARATHUVADAKARA, VELLAVOOR VILLAGE. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., QUILON. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO.1521 OF 2005 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He had claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 13.5.2000. He had suffered multiple fracture of ribs, fracture of vertebra and suspected head injury. He was an inpatient for a period of 14 days and continued treatment as an outpatient. He has allegedly sustained permanent partial physical disability. He had acquired the requisite qualification to work as a Surveyor and was employed as an apprentice at the relevant time. He was allegedly earning Rs.125 to Rs.150/- per day. 2. Before the Tribunal, the appellant was examined as PW.1 and Exts.A1 to A11 series were marked. 3. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, awarded a total compensation of Rs.68,400/- as per the details shown below: M.A.C.A. NO.1521/2005 2 i. Pain and suffering : Rs.12,500/- ii. Loss of earning : Rs. 9,000/- (1500x6) iii. Expenses for bystander : Rs. 1,400/- iv. Extra nourishment : Rs. 1,000/- v. Medical expenses (against bills produced) : Rs. 7,000/- vi. Loss of amenities (shown as injuries) : Rs. 9,000/- vii. Compensation for reduction in earning capacity consequent to permanent disability : Rs.28,500/- (basis not revealed) ----------------- Total : Rs.68,400/- ----------------- 4. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant urges the following grounds: 5. First of all, it is contended that the monthly income reckoned at Rs.1,500/- is not correct, reasonable or just. The appellant has the requisite qualification to work as a Surveyor and was working as an apprentice at the relevant time earning Rs.125 to Rs.150/- per day and that M.A.C.A. NO.1521/2005 3 was vouched by Ext.A10, contends counsel. Ext.A9 shows his professional qualification. Learned counsel contends that with such qualification, it is reasonable to assume that he must have been getting an income much above Rs.1,500/- per mensem. Prospects of enhancement have not been taken into account by the Tribunal while considering the quantum of compensation payable under the head reduction of earning capacity. The Tribunal erred in granting compensation for loss of earning capacity for six months at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensem, contends counsel. It is further contended that a global amount of Rs.28,500/- alone is awarded towards compensation for continuing permanent disability and that even assuming the monthly income to be Rs.1,500/- and adopting 17 as the multiplier and the disability accepted by the Tribunal as 10%, an amount of Rs.30,600/- (1500x12x17/10)must have been granted under that head. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant makes a further grievance that though Ext.A8 treatment/disability certificate has been produced showing permanent disability as 15%, the Tribunal reckoned only 10% as disability. This reduction of percentage of disability from 15 to 10 is not justifiable, contends counsel. M.A.C.A. NO.1521/2005 4 7. Counsel then contends that even for loss of amenities/impairment the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.9,000/- calling it compensation for injuries. This, counsel contends, is too inadequate, considering the age of the appellant and the period he will have to endure the disability. Lastly and finally counsel contends that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% per annum is not justified and that at any rate, going by the precedents, interest must have been granted at 7.5% per annum. 8. We have rendered our anxious consideration to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. We have indications available about the qualification of the appellant. He was working as an apprentice under a licensed surveyor. What is to be reckoned as his income is not merely the present earnings as an apprentice, but the prospects in earnings for the period for which compensation is to be awarded. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the monthly income of the appellant can safely be taken as Rs.2,000/- even in the absence of better and more convincing evidence. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier 17(applicable to persons in the age group between 20 and 25 as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act) should certainly have been adopted by the Tribunal in computing compensation for disability. We have gone M.A.C.A. NO.1521/2005 5 through Ext.A8 and have taken note of the injuries suffered by the appellant. It is, of course, true that permanent disability has been assessed at 15%. But, the author of Ext.A8 was not examined. Even assuming that permanent disability is assessed at 15%, considering the nature of the qualification and employment of the appellant, reckoning of reduction of earning capacity taking 10% as disability does appear to us to be absolutely acceptable. No interference is warranted on that score. 9. For loss of amenities, the compensation awarded is Rs.9,000/- showing the head as compensation for injuries. We are satisfied that in the nature of the injuries indicated in Ext.A8 and the age of the appellant (20-21 years) and the period during which he has to endure the disability, an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded as compensation for loss of amenities. We also agree with the learned counsel that interest must be awarded at 7.5% per annum. 10. On the basis of the above discussions, we hold that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.26,300/- as per the details shown below: i. Loss of earning :2000x6=12,000 (Rs.3000 more) M.A.C.A. NO.1521/2005 6 ii. Compensation for reduction :2000x12x17x10/100 in earning capacity consequent :=Rs.40,800 to disability :(Rs.12,300/- more) iii. Loss of amenities : Rs.20,000/- :(Rs.11,000/- more) ----------------------- Total : Rs.26,300/-(more in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal) The appellant shall be entitled for interest for the entire amount of compensation at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition and costs as already directed to be paid by the Tribunal. 11. The appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.1521/2005 7 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.1521/2005 JUDGMENT 20th February, 2009 M.A.C.A. NO.1521/2005 8