IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 845 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.1567/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- MOHAMMED AHSRAF, S/O. A.R. MOHAMMED ISMAIL, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.PRAVITHA A.R RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ANEESH ANDREWS @ ANEESH, S/O. JOSEPH THOMAS, ARATTUKULAM HOUSE, WARD NO.VIII, MARARIKULAM NORTH PANCHAYAT. 2. AJITH BOSE, ARATTUKULAM, CHETHY P.O., ARTHUNKAL. 3. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, SHARADA COMPLEX MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.ANTONY M. AMBAT FOR R1,2 SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.845 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT R.BASANT, J. The appellant herein was the claimant before the court below. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident. The claim was for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. He was already a polio afflicted person. He was employed as the Secretary of a Grama Panchayat. It is submitted that polio has resulted in disability of 55% already before the accident was suffered. He was aged about 36 years on the date of the accident. He suffered multiple fractures. The accident obliged him to remain in the hospital as in-patient for a period exceeding 3½ months. By-standers had to be engaged from the Red-Cross to attend on him. Before the Tribunal, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A22 were marked. The report of the medical board was secured by the Tribunal and that shows that the appellant had suffered permanent partial disability to the tune of 14% as a result of the injury suffered in the accident, in addition to what he had already suffered as a result of the polio. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.2,01,166/-. The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. M.A.C.A. No.845 of 2006 2 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Detailed arguments have been advanced. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on the following specific grounds: i) The quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings is totally insufficient. ii) No compensation has been awarded for extra nourishment, damage to clothings etc. iii) At any rate, the quantum of compensation awarded for the physical disability suffered is not sufficient and satisfactory. 3. We have rendered our anxious consideration to the challenge raised in these specific grounds. There is evidence to show that for a period of about 2 years, the appellant/claimant could not attend to his work. He was of course granted leave; but the total reduction in emoluments actually received is Rs.31,279/- going by Ext.A19. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal had not taken into account the fact that the appellant had lost his leave which he could otherwise have made use of for other purpose. We take note of all these circumstances and we are of the opinion that the award of an amount of Rs.45,000/- under the head of loss of earning (loss of leave) can safely be awarded. M.A.C.A. No.845 of 2006 3 4. For the loss suffered for extra nourishment, damage to clothings etc., no amount has been awarded and we are persuaded to feel that an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded under this head considering the state of health of the appellant and also the period of treatment. 5. The main thrust of the contention is that adequate compensation has not been awarded under the head of disability suffered. Though Ext.C1 report obtained by the Tribunal from the Medical Board shows that 14% disability has been suffered by the appellant, already a disabled person, on account of the injuries suffered, the Tribunal reckoned the percentage of physical disability at 10% and we are unable to find satisfactory reasons to justify such reduction. It cannot be lost sight of that the assessment of disability consequent to injury suffered in the accident is made by a Medical Board to which the Tribunal had referred the appellant. In these circumstances we find it safe to accept the report of the Medical Board that 14% physical disability has been suffered by the appellant as a result of the injury suffered. 6. It is not in dispute that the appellant is continuing in employment and there is no actual reduction in the monthly pay packet on account of the disability suffered. The Tribunal reckoned Rs.2,500/- as the monthly income and computed the M.A.C.A. No.845 of 2006 4 compensation assuming that 10% disability has been suffered. Inasmuch as there is no reduction in income now, this Court will have to take note of the fact that with 14% disability suffered, to perform the same work as he was doing earlier, extra strain on the part of th appellant is called for. That is because of the accident and certainly he is entitled to be compensated for such extra strain which he will have to put in to earn the same salary. The post retirement employment prospects of the appellant will also be necessarily impaired because of the disability suffered. That dimension of the loss will also have to be borne in mind. The disability suffered has reflections not only on the income earned from time to time, it has a reflection on the quality of life that the injured/victim can aspire to live after the accident. The Tribunal did take that into reckoning and awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- under head of loss of amenities. Totally an amount of Rs.62,000/- alone was awarded. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this amount fixed is not fair and just. The fact that the appellant was already disabled and the disability suffered as a result of the accident has brought further misery to him in the quality of enjoyment of his life may be taken into account, contends the counsel. Even though there is a contention that subsequently he is obliged to take leave frequently, there is no specific material to come to a positive M.A.C.A. No.845 of 2006 5 conclusion on that aspect. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that resort to the multiplier-multiplicand method may not be proper, effective or just in the circumstances. We are satisfied that a global amount can be awarded for the permanent disability suffered taking into account the extra strain which the appellant will have to put in to perform the same amount of work which he was doing earlier without reduction in the monthly pay packet, the impairment of the post retirement employment prospects as also the reflection of the disability suffered on the quality of enjoyment of live which the appellant can aspire after the accident and the consequent disability. After having rendered our anxious consideration to these aspects, we are satisfied that an award of Rs.1,10,000/- as a global amount can be awarded for the reflection of the permanent disability suffered on the above aspect shall be clear and just. 7. There is a contention that the interest awarded is not adequate. Only 6% has been awarded as interest. At least 7.5% must have been awarded, it is contended. We accept the same. 8. We are not satisfied that the amounts awarded under any other head deserve modification. 9. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; M.A.C.A. No.845 of 2006 6 b) The impugned award is modified and the appellant shall be paid the following further amounts (total Rs.68,000/-): i) Loss of earnings - Rs.15,000/- more ii) Extra nourishment - Rs.5,000/- more iii) The loss suffered on account of physical disability - Rs.48,000/- more. c) The rate of interest is modified and it is directed that the interest shall be payable @ 7.5% per annum instead 6% per annum on the total amount. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) rtr/-