IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1319 of 2011(B) ----------------------- O.P(MV) NO.577/05 OF PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE APPELLANT : PETITIONER ------------------------ AFSAL RAHIMAN @ AFAL, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, PARAMBIL HOUSE, EAST NALLUR, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. PARALI ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, PARAMBIL HOUSE, NALLUR, KOZHIKODE-673 320. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, I.G.ROAD BRANCH, CALICUT-673 001. 3. P.ASIF, S/O.ISMAIL, AGED 50 YEARS, MILLA HOUSE, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-673 631. ADV. SRI.ZIYAD REHMAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1319 of 2011-B ***************************** Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He, a young person, aged about 25 years, had suffered personal injuries in a motor accident which took place on 24.09.2003. He was an inpatient from 24.09.2003 to 08.10.2003. Later he was admitted to an Ayurvedic Nursing Home from 26.05.2004 and discharged on 16.07.2004. He had suffered serious injuries including fracture of L1 vertebra. There was distal radius compound fracture of the left forearm. He was rendered totally paraplegic after the accident. He had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 90%. This is certified by a Medical Board to whom he was referred under Ext.C1 disability certificate. Against a claim limited to Rs.12 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.6,80,863/- as per the details given in para.12, which we extract below: Sl.No. Heads of claim Amount awarded 1 Transport to hospital Rs. 2,500.00 2 Extra nourishment Rs. 2,000.00 3 Loss of earning Rs. 6,000.00(3000X2months) M.A.C.A No.1319 of 2011-B 2 Sl.No. Heads of claim Amount awarded 4 Treatment expenses Rs. 67,163.00 5 Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000.00 6 Permanent disability Rs.5,83,200.00 (3000X12X18X90/100) Total Rs.6,80,863/- 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the insurance company. The insurer has been made entirely liable to pay the compensation. The challenge is raised only on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not just and sufficient. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the Tribunal had erred grossly in reckoning only Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income. It is stated that the appellant was running a furniture business. There is nothing produced in support of this assertion. However, on a perusal of Ext.A1 F.I.R, we note that in his hour of trauma when his statement was recored by the police officer, he had stated that he was running a furniture business. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in any view of the matter, the amount of Rs.3,000/- reckoned as monthly income by the Tribunal is not satisfactory. The learned counsel relies on M.A.C.A No.1319 of 2011-B 3 clause 6 of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, which was enacted as early as in 1994 as also the dictum in Lata Wadhwa V. State of Bihar [AIR 2001 SC 3218] and Laxmi Devi & Ors. V. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr. [2008 ACJ 1488]. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that Rs.3,500/- can safely be reckoned as the monthly income giving due provision for probable future improvement in prospects. 4. The Tribunal had reckoned involuntary unemployment for a period of 2 months only. We are satisfied that during the period of treatment, he must have been involuntarily unemployed at least for a period of 6 months. Appropriate enhancement can be awarded under that head also. For extra nourishment during the period of hospitalisation and treatment, we are satisfied that an amount ofRs.10,000/- deserves to be awarded. 5. No amount of compensation is seen awarded under the head of bystander's expenses. The appellant having suffered paraplegia after the accident, we are satisfied that during the period of treatment and thereafter he was in need of the services of a bystander. We are satisfied that a total amount of M.A.C.A No.1319 of 2011-B 4 Rs.15,000/- can be awarded as compensation for expenses of bystander, both during treatment as an inpatient and thereafter. 6. For pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.20,000/- alone has been awarded. The learned counsel argues and we agree that this is insufficient. Considering the period of treatment, nature of injuries etc., we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.30,000/- can be awarded as compensation for pain and suffering. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. 25 year old claimant has suffered 90% disability. He will have to live with this disability for the entire rest of his life. Physical disability suffered by a person in addition to reduction in earnings results in deprivation and reduction of the quality of enjoyment of life. We are satisfied in the facts and circumstances of this case that an amount of Rs.35,000/- deserves to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities in addition to the amount of compensation awarded under the head of reduction in earning capacity (permanent disability) by employing multiplier- multiplicand method. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that M.A.C.A No.1319 of 2011-B 5 the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,80,200/- as shown below in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) Extra nourishment : Rs.8,000.00 (10,000 minus 2,000) ii) Loss of earnings : Rs.15,000.00 (3,500 X 6=21,000 minus Rs.6,000/-) iii) Bystander's expenses : Rs.15,000.00 (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) iv) Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000.00 (30,000 minus 20,000) v) Reduction in earning capacity : Rs.97,200.00 (3500 X 12 X 18 X 90/100 =6,80,400 minus 5,83,200) vi) Loss of amenities : Rs.35,000.00 (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) ---------------------- Total : Rs.1,80,200.00 ========= 9. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves modification/enhancement. We are further satisfied that proportionate cost as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943] can be awarded in the proceedings before the Tribunal. M.A.C.A No.1319 of 2011-B 6 10. In the result: a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,80,200/- (Rupees One lakh eighty thousand two hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal; d) The appellant shall be entitled for the proportionate cost before the Tribunal as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K (supra). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/