IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 1860 of 2006(B) ----------------------- OPMV.1116/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- VENU CHANDRAN, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 26, MUDUVAKKATTIL HOUSE, MANNEMPETTAH VATTANATHARA. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SOJO LAZER K.JOHN, KOMBAN HOUSE, NEAR HOMEO DISPENSARY, VATTANATHARA. 2. SURENDRAN, S/O. PARAPARAMBATH NARAYANAN, POOKOTTU DESOM, AMBALLUR. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CITY HEIGHTS BUILDING, S. CHALAKUDY. ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1860 of 2006-B ***************************** Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for injuries suffered in a motor accident which took place on 13.02.2000. Against a claim of Rs.1.5 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.52,868/- as per the details given below: i) Extra nourishment & attendant wages : Rs. 1,000.00 ii) Medical expenses : Rs. 6,578.00 iii) Taxi charges : Rs. 1,870.00 iv) Loss of earnings (Rs.1500 X 3) : Rs. 4,500.00 v) Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000.00 vi) Loss of amenities : Rs. 3,000.00 vii) Disability (1500 X 12 X 8/100 X18) : Rs.25,920.00 -------------------- Total : Rs.52,868.00 ======== The said amount was directed to be paid along with interest @ 6% per annum. M.A.C.A No.1860 of 2006-B 2 2. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation for loss of earning capacity computed at Rs.25,920/- is grossly inadequate. Rs.1,500/- alone has been taken as the monthly income of a qualified driver, aged 26 years on 13.02.2000. This is perversely low. The learned counsel wants to remind the Court of the presumption of prudence by the legislature against clause 6 of the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act in 1994 that even a non earning person can safely be assumed to earn Rs.1,250/- per mensem. In any view of the matter, the amount of Rs.1,500/- reckoned as monthly wages cannot be accepted, contends the counsel. 3. The learned counsel then contends that disability of 15% was assessed by the doctor by detailed medical certificate issued by him marked as Ext.A9. As per Ext.A9 certificate, which has been placed before us, the total disability of whole body ratio is 13.8%. The details of the injuries, hospitalisation, treatment and the physical disability perceived by the doctor are given in detail in that certificate. The Tribunal did not accept 13.8% as the reduction in earing capacity. The Tribunal took only 8% as the reduction in earning capacity. Considering the nature of his M.A.C.A No.1860 of 2006-B 3 employment and the nature of the resultant physical disability described in the disability certificate, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal did not commit any error in not accepting the disability at 13.8%. We do particularly note that of the various functional disabilities, there is no disability stated in the disability certificate which can affect the capacity of the appellant to drive a vehicle, which is his avocation. In any view of the matter 8% reckoned by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference, we are satisfied. The learned counsel contends that in any view of the matter for the accepted disability of 8% reckoned by the Tribunal, the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities is too low. We find merit in that contention. We are further satisfied that an amount of Rs.2,250/- can, even in the absence of any better evidence, be reckoned as the monthly earnings of the appellant as a driver at the relevant time. 4. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the following further amounts as compensation in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. i) Loss of earnings : Rs. 2,250.00 [(2,250 X 3) minus 4,500] M.A.C.A No.1860 of 2006-B 4 ii) Reduction in earning capacity : Rs.12,960.00 (2,250 X 12 X 8/100 X 18) iii) Loss of amenities : Rs. 4,500.00 (7,500 minus 3,000) ------------------- Total : Rs.19,710.00 ======== 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argues and we agree that interest awarded at the rate of 6% per annum is inadequate and unrealistic. The interest @ 7.5% per annum could safely have been granted by the Tribunal. 6. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.19,710/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand seven hundred and ten only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal; c) The entire amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of payment/deposit; d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/