IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 1424 of 2005() ------------------------------------ OP(MV).1597/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/APPLICANT. ------------------------------------------------------------ A.RAJENDRA BABU, S/O.AYYAPPAN PILLAI, PADMALAYAM, KANNACODE, MARTHANDAM P.O. KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER KARAKONAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. BABU, S/O.SREEDHARAN, PADINJATTIL VEEDU, ATTIPRA, KULATHOOR P.O,. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTARATHIL BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R2 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.1424 OF 2005 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He was riding as pillion rider along with the claimant/appellant in M.A.C.A.No.813 of 2005. He claimed an amount of Rs.4,36,600/- as compensation for personal injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. He was awarded an amount of Rs.1,35,199/- by the Tribunal as per the details given below: 1. Loss of earnings : Rs.47,949/-(for leave availed) 2. Transport to hospital : Rs.3,000/- 3. Medical and miscellaneous expenses : Rs.35,000/- 4. By standers Expenses : Rs. 3,000/- 5. Extra nourishment : Rs.2,000/- 6. Damage to clothing : Rs.250/- 7. Pain and suffering : Rs.15,000/- 8. Compensation for reduction earning capacity : Rs.19,200/- ( 2,000/-x12x8x10/100) 9. Loss of amenities : Rs.10,000/- ----------------- Total Rs.1,35,199/- =========== 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the computation of M.A.C.A No.1424 OF 2005 2 compensation. According to the learned counsel, the amounts awarded do not represent just and fair compensation. The counsel raises the challenge on three specific grounds. 3. First of all, it is contended that an amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded for pain and suffering is grossly inadequate. The appellant had suffered fracture of right femur at shaft and neck, compound fracture of both bones of right leg (Type II) and fracture of fourth metacarpal of right hand. He was an inpatient from 15.3.1999 to 11.6.19999 and 9.7.1999 to 15.7.1999. Skeletal traction and below knee plaster was applied. Spica plaster was applied. Open reduction and internal fixation was also done. He had disabilities including 2 cms. Shortening. The tibia fracture was united with 10% posterior angulation. 4 cms. Shortening of the right lower limb had also resulted. There was partial ankylosis of the right femor and right hip. Permanent disability was assessed at 16%. 4. Considering the nature of injuries, fractures, nature of treatment and the period of hospitalisation, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded as compensation for pain and suffering. 5. The Tribunal found that though 18% permanent disability was certified in Ext.A23, the reduction in earning capacity should be reckoned only as 10%. The Tribunal further found that at present there is no reduction in the earnings of the appellant. But the Tribunal realistically took note of the fact that after retirement at the age of 55 years, the reduction in earning capacity may become relevant. M.A.C.A No.1424 OF 2005 3 Reckoning the age at 55 for that purpose 8 was adopted as multiplier as per the Second Schedule. The primary grievance of the appellant is that only Rs.2,000/- was reckoned as the earnings at the age of 55 when the appellant takes up post retiral engagement. The appellant was a Deputy Engineer employed by M/s Keltron. It is submitted that a higher multiplicand must have been taken by the Tribunal while computing the quantum of compensation payable. We agree with the learned counsel. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.3,250/- can be accepted as the monthly income from such post retiral engagement. We immediately note that the appellant is deriving the advantage of accelerated consolidated lumpsom payment of such amount now. 6. For the loss of amenities only an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded. The counsel contends that though the physical disability may not reflect now in the earnings, the appellant will have have to endure such disability for a long period of time. Considering the nature of physical disabilities, the compensation for loss of amenities deserves to be enhanced, contends the counsel. We agree, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- can be awarded as compensation for loss of amenities consequent to physical disability. 7. On the basis of above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the following further amount as compensation: 1. Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/- (25000 minus 15000) 2. Compensation for reduction earning capacity : Rs.12,000/- M.A.C.A No.1424 OF 2005 4 (3250x12x8x10/100= 31200 minus 19200) 3. Loss of amenities : Rs.10,000/- (20000 minus 10000) --------------- Total Rs.32,000/- ========= 8. The respondents are liable to pay to the appellant the said further amount of Rs. 32,000/-(Rupees thirty two thousand only) in addition to the amounts already awarded. 9. In the result: a. This appeal is allowed in part. b. Responds are directed to pay a further amount of Rs.32000/- (Rupees thirty two thousand only) in addition to the amount already directed. c. The entire amount shall carry interest at the rate directed by the Tribunal from the date of claim to the date of payment. d. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE mns