IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 144 of 2004() ---------------------- O.P.M.V.NO.1677 OF 1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- SHIHABUDEEN, AGED 25 YEARS, KANAKKAYIL HOUSE, PADAPARAMBA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. K.HAMZA, S/O. BAIDALIKUTTY, KANNABRA HOUSE, P.O.VATALOOR. (DRIVER) 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU FOR R1 ADV.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.144 of 2004 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT R.BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He had claimed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the appellant/claimant that he is entitled to receive compensation and quantified the amount payable at Rs.1,28,280/- along with interest and cost. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. The counsel for the appellant and insurance company have been heard. The appellant had suffered multiple fractures. He was aged 20 years at the time of the accident. He was an inpatient for a period of about 30 days. He had suffered permanent disability which was assessed by the medical board under Ext.A1 certificate to be 12%. The Tribunal had awarded amounts under various heads. Monthly income was reckoned at Rs.2,000/- per mensem though the assertions in the petition was that the claimant/appellant was receiving Rs.2,500/- per mensem. Disability of 12% was M.A.C.A. No.144 of 2004 2 accepted. The proper multiplier under the second schedule was taken into account to ascertain the quantum for the compensation payable under loss of earning capacity consequent to disability. 2. What is the grievance of the appellant ? The counsel first of all contends that the monthly income was not properly reckoned. The Tribunal had accepted Rs.2,000/- as the appellant's monthly income. No specific evidence was made available. The claimant/appellant asserted that he was employed in a bakery. In the absence of better evidence we find absolutely nothing wrong in the Tribunal reasonably reckoning the monthly income at Rs.2,000/- per mensem. 3. It is next contended that though compensation for reduction earning capacity consequent to disability has been awarded, no amount has been awarded for the reduction in the impairment in the quality of life consequent to the physical disability of 12% suffered by the claimant/appellant. The claimant/appellant is shown to be aged 20 years on the date of the accident. The Tribunal does not appear to have adverted to this dimension of the loss suffered by the appellant. We are satisfied in the circumstances of this case that award of a further M.A.C.A. No.144 of 2004 3 amount of Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment of life consequent to the physical disability suffered shall be just and reasonable. 4. We are not satisfied that the amounts awarded under any other head deserve or warrant interference. 5. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The impugned award is modified and it is directed that in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal the appellant will be entitled to a further amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with interest from the date of the petition as already awarded by the Tribunal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) rtr/-