IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2007 / 30TH ASWINA 1929 MFA.No. 254 of 2000(B) --------------------------------- O.P.(MV).NO.3534/1996 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- VINOD.P., S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AGED 23, RESIDING AT PERUMPEZHATHU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHACHERY, KOLLAM -3. BY ADV. SMT.P.C.JEEVA. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN O.P: -------------------------------------------- 1. NIXON, S/O. VARKEY, AGED 23, RESIDING AT N.G.O. QUARTERS, E/2 VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANADU. 2. P.I. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PALAL HOUSE, WARRIAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., B.O. III, SHARANYA HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -11. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS, ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.F.A. NO. 254/2000-B: J U D G M E N T When the case was called there was no representation. Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE. 22/10/2007. SD/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// prv. R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.F.A No.254 of 2000-B ***************************** Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He, a 19 year old employed person, claimed compensation for loss suffered by him as a result of the motor accident which took place on 14.07.1996. Against a total amount of Rs.5 lakhs claimed by the appellant, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,12,500/- as per the details given below: Sl.No. Head of award Amount awarded 1 Pain and suffering Rs. 35,000.00 2 Loss of earnings Rs. 9,000.00 (1,500 X 6 months) 3 Medical expenses (bills for Rs.78,063/- produced) Rs. 82,000.00 4 Damage to clothing Rs. 500.00 5 Transport to hospital Rs. 2,000.00 6 Loss of earning capacity Rs. 54,000.00 (1500 X 12 X 15 X 20/100) 7 Loss of amenities Rs. 15,000.00 8 Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs.2,12,500.00 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The insurer M.F.A No.254/2000 2 has been made entirely liable to satisfy the impugned award. The challenge is raised against the impugned award only on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate. 3. Called upon to explain the challenge and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the monthly income of the appellant was wrongly assumed to be Rs.1,500/- per mensem. In addition to that, he was getting an amount of Rs.15/- per day as bata. No provision has been made for future increase in prospects. At any rate, in these circumstances, the amount taken into consideration by the Tribunal is inadequate, contends the learned counsel. 4. The appellant was a 19 year old worker. Presumption of prudence under clause 6 of the Second Schedule permits Tribunals to draw the conclusion that even a non earning person must be earning an income of Rs.1,250/- per mensem. Here we have evidence to show that the appellant was actually employed. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that Rs.2,000/- can be reckoned as loss of earnings per mensem during the period of treatment (6 months). While considering the loss of earning capacity, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.2,500/- can be M.F.A No.254/2000 3 reckoned as the monthly income giving due accommodation for future improvement of prospects in employment. 15 has been reckoned as the multiplier. Going by the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], 18 is to be adopted as the multiplier. 5. The learned counsel then points out that the appellant was an inpatient for a period of 41 days. He had suffered serious disability. The extent of disability was reckoned by the Tribunal as 20%. Before this Court, the appellant was referred to a Medical Board at the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum. The report of the Medical Board received by the Court shows that a panel of expert doctors have assessed the total disability to be 40%. The same can safely be accepted. 6. For loss of amenities, an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded in addition to the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head of loss of marriage prospects. Those amounts were fixed taking into account the disability to be 20%. It is now evident that the disability is 40%. Appropriate increase in the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities and marriage prospects are liable to be granted, we are satisfied. M.F.A No.254/2000 4 7. It is contended that though the appellant was an inpatient for a period of 41 days and had continued treatment thereafter, no amount has been awarded under the heads of extra nourishment and bystander's expenses. We are satisfied that compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per day under each head can be awarded as compensation for the entire period of hospitalisation. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,83,200/- as shown below in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) Loss of earnings : Rs.3,000.00 (2,000 X 6=12,000 minus Rs.9,000/-) ii) Bystander's expenses and extra nourishment : Rs. 8,200.00 (no amount granted by the (41 days X Rs.200) Tribunal) iii) Reduction in earning capacity : Rs.1,62,000.00 (2500 X 12 X 18 X 40/100 =2,16,000 minus 54,000) iv) Loss of amenities & loss of marriage prospects : Rs.10,000.00 (40,000 minus 30,000) --------------------- Total : Rs.1,83,200.00 ========= M.F.A No.254/2000 5 9. Interest has been awarded at 12% per annum. We are satisfied that interest deserves to be awarded only @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount. 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.1,83,200/- (Rupees One lakh eighty three thousand and two hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We direct that the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of payment. Proportionate costs on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943] shall also be paid; d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/