IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 474 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.1960/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- T. SANTHOSH, AGED 32 YEARS, SON OF THANKAPPAN, VADAVATTU HOUSE, KANINADU, VADAVUKKODE P.O., PUTHENCRUZ. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.NITHYA.K. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. K.P. ELDHO, KILITHATTIL HOUSE, THENGODE P.O., KAKKANADU. 2. JOY THOMAS, PAROOKKARAN HOUSE, MORAKKALA KARA, KUMARAPURAM P.O. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G. ROAD, COCHIN-11. 4. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.474 of 2004 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Appellant is the claimant before the Tribunal. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered in a motor accident which occurred on 06.03.1996. He claimed an amount of Rs.3,32,750/-. He was aged 24 years and a driver by profession. He had suffered external injuries and fracture of the nasal bone, fracture of the right maxillary antrum, fracture of lateral wall of right orbit and fracture of right zygoma. He was an inpatient for 32 days. He had undergone 2 surgeries. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.52,750/- as per the medical bills produced. He had allegedly suffered a disability and the medical board in Ext.A11 report assessed the disability to be 20%. The Tribunal took into account all relevant circumstances and came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,48,700/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. Accordingly the impugned award was passed. 2. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that compensation M.A.C.A. No.474 of 2004 2 awarded for 20% disability suffered is not adequate or sufficient. The appellant, a driver, suffered injury to the eye which led to persistent watering from the right eye. It resulted in photo phobia also. This, the medical board opined, has resulted in permanent partial disability of 20%. Evidently taking into account the fact that the appellant is a driver and for performance of whose employment proper vision of the eye is important, the Tribunal accepted the report of the Medical Board. 3. Called upon to explain the precise nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on the following specific grounds. Even though the Tribunal had accepted 20% as the physical disability and the consequent reduction in earning capacity and had reckoned the correct multiplier as 17 as per the second schedule, the Tribunal erred in reckoning only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income. This is too inadequate. Consequent to acceptance of only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income, the amount awarded under the head of loss of earning ie. Rs.1,500/- X 6 and the amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity, ie. Rs.61,200 [1500 X 12 X 17 X 20/100] are inadequate, it is M.A.C.A. No.474 of 2004 3 contended. 4. Further the counsel contends that the disability has resulted in dis figuration. The multiple injuries were suffered on the face. As many as 4 fractures were also suffered. The total amount of Rs.8,000/- awarded under the heads of loss of amenities (Rs.5,000/-) and dis figuration (Rs.3,000/-)- is too inadequate and insufficient, contends the counsel. 5. We note that from 1994, even for a non earning person, law permits a presumption that he must have been earning an amount of Rs.1,250/- per mensem. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the appellant a skilled driver can safely be assumed to be earning an income of Rs.1,750/- per mensem. Consequently the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,500/- (6 X 250) under the head of loss of earnings and an amount of Rs.10,200/- under the head of reduction in earning capacity consequent to disability (1750 X 12 X 17 X 20/100 minus Rs.61,200]. We are further satisfied that a total amount of Rs.15,000/- can safely be awarded as compensation for dis figuration and loss of amenities and future prospects suffered by the 24 year old appellant on account of the injury suffered on the face. The appellant would consequently entitle to a further amount of Rs.7,000/- [15000 minus (5000 + 3000)]. M.A.C.A. No.474 of 2004 4 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a total further amount of Rs.18,700/- as shown below. Loss of earnings : Rs.1,500/- more Loss of earning capacity consequent to physical disability : Rs.10,200/- more Loss of amenities and dis figuration : Rs.7,000/- more Total : Rs.18,700/- more 7. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellant shall be entitled to a further amount of Rs.18,700/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand seven hundred only) in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal along with interest as directed by the Tribunal on the entire amount from the date of the petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/