IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 275 of 2009() ---------------------- O.P.(M.V) NO.356/2002 OF M.A.C.T, PALAKKAD APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ AJEESH, S/O.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT MOOLAYIL HOUSE, AYILOOR, NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. KRISHNAN, S/O.RANKANDY, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT MOOLAYIL HOUSE, AYILOOR, NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. R.GOPI, S/O.RANKANDY, RESIDING AT MOOLAYIL HOUSE, AYILOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, I.G.TOWERS, NEAR NENMARA BUS STAND, PALAKKAD. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.275 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- as compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in an accident which occurred on 14/11/2001. He claimed to be a toddy tapper, aged 20 years, getting a monthly income of Rs.4,500/- per mensum. He had suffered fracture of the left humerus and other injuries. He was at the hospital as an in-patient for a period of nine days. He had allegedly suffered physical disability to the tune of 8% as assessed by a medical officer who issued Ext.A8 certificate. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. The doctor who issued Ext.A8 disability certificate was, for obscure reasons, not examined as a witness. 2. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for only an amount of Rs.48,342/- as compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of the said amount along with interest @ 7.5% per mensum and cost. M.A.C.A.No.275/09 2 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the learned counsel for the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation awarded is not fair, reasonable or just. 4. Compensation has been awarded under the following heads: 1. Loss of earnings Rs.1,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 15/30) 2. Transport to hospital Rs.1,000/- 3. Extra nourishment Rs.1,000/- 4. Damage to clothing Rs.500/- 5. Bystander expenses Rs.1,350/- 6. Medical expenses Rs.4,452/- (against bills produced) 7. Pain and suffering Rs.13,000/- 8. Loss of earning capacity Rs.23,040/- (2,000 x 12 x 16 x 6/100) 9. Compensation for loss of amenities as a result of the Rs.3,000/- disability Total Rs.48342/- M.A.C.A.No.275/09 3 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends first of all that the multiplicand reckoned at Rs.2,000/- per mensum is not sufficient. The appellant, going by the records available, was only in his late teens when the incident took place. Though he asserted that he was a toddy tapper, no better materials were available. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, drew a presumption of prudence that, at any rate, Rs.2,000/- can be reckoned as the monthly income. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are unable to agree that the said inference of prudence drawn by the tribunal is incorrect or requires appellate interference and modification. The learned counsel then contends that Ext.A8 disability certificate must have been accepted completely by the tribunal and the tribunal went wrong in reckoning physical disability only at 6%. Reduction from 8% to 6% is not justified, it is contended. The tribunal took note of the fact that the author of Ext.A8 disability certificate has not been examined. We have gone through the contends of Ext.A8. Even assuming that the physical disability is reckoned at 8%., we have no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the tribunal that the reduction in earning capacity can be reckoned at 6%. The appellant has to blame himself for not proving Ext.A8 to the satisfaction of the tribunal. There is a dispute as to what should M.A.C.A.No.275/09 4 have been the multiplier available. Indications clearly suggest that the appellant must be reckoned in the age group of 15 - 20, 16 is the multiplier applicable under the 2nd schedule. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded is incorrect or warrants interference. 6. There is a challenge against the quantum fixed under the head of loss of earnings and loss of amenities. We are not satisfied that the tribunal has committed any such error which demands appellate interference. May be another judicial mind would have awarded a slightly higher amount under the head of loss of earnings; but over all, we are satisfied that the quantum of compensation fixed does not warrant interference. 7. In the result, the challenge fails and hence this M.A.C.A is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.275/09 5 M.A.C.A.No.275/09 6 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009