IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1228 of 2011 ----------------------- OPMV.2304/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT. --------------------------------- BASHEER, S/O.ABOOBACKER,KUNNATHU HOUSE, SREEMOLANAGARAM, NOW RESIDING AT KARAKUNNATH HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTIRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RAVI, S/O.MADAMBI, NJALIL HOUSE, CHOONDAL P.O, PARANNOOR, KUNNAMKULAM VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN 680502 2. LIJU, S/O.JOY, KAVANAKKUDI HOUSE, NEAR MENOTH PARA, VAIKKARA, RAYAMANGALAM.PIN 683 545 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMAPNY LTD, 1ST FLOOR, K.V.VARKEY MEMORIAL COMPLEX, ANGAMALY.PIN 682 613. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 1228 OF 2011 ============================ Dated this the 3rd day of August 2011 JUDGMENT R.Basant, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. Against his claim of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for loss suffered by him on account of personal injury suffered in a motor accident which took place on 11/10/2005, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.76,058/- as per the details given in paragraph 14 of the judgment which we extract below: MACA 1228/2011 2 sl.No. Head of claim amount awarded Basis - vital details in a nut shell 1 Loss of earnings 6000 Rs.3,000 x 2 months 2 Future loss of earnings nil 3 Transport to Hospital 750 4 Extra nourishment 1000 5 Damage to clothing 250 6 Attendants charges 1200 Rs.100 x 12 days 7 Medical expenses 25818 Actual medical bills 8 pain and suffering 10000 BB fracture IP 12 days 9 Loss of amenities 5000 10 Disfiguration 3000 11 Disability 23040 12 Loss of earning power nil 13 Mental shock and agony nil Total 76058 Rs.76,058/-along with interest @8%.a. from filing till realisation MACA 1228/2011 3 2. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in reckoning the disability/reduction in earning capacity at 4% only against the opinion given by PW1, Doctor in Ext.A9 certificate that the appellant had suffered disability to the tune of 7%. In addition to an amount of Rs.8,000/-, under the head of loss of amenities and disfiguration, the Tribunal had held that the appellant is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.23,040/- (3000x12x16x4/100) as compensation for reduction in earning capacity. The short contention is that the extent of reduction in earning capacity reckoned by the Tribunal as 4% is not proper. 3. Actually physical disability by itself is not crucial in the assessment of compensation for reduction in earning power. The reflection of the physical disability on the capacity to earn is the crucial input. The Doctor had certified that 7% is the disability on the basis of the following details given in the disability certificate, Ext.A9. (1) 70 degree Dorsiflexion to 15 degree palmar flexion MACA 1228/2011 4 (2) full supination to 25 degree pronation (3) full pronation to 50 degree supination 4. The Tribunal approached with reservation the disability certificate issued by the Medical Officer individually and not as a member of the Board. The Tribunal further noted that the discharge summary does not reveal that there was any disability at the time of discharge. Be that as it may, the Tribunal felt persuaded to accept that 4% can be reckoned as the extent of reduction in earning capacity. The Tribunal did not accept the assessment that 7% is the extent of physical disability. Even assuming that 7% was the physical disability in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded to agree that reckoning 4% as the extent of reduction in earning capacity is not proper or correct or that warranting appellate interference. In fact, there was nothing placed before the court to show that the disability had immediately led to any reduction in earning capacity of the appellant in his present employment as a marble worker. In any view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the conclusion of the Tribunal that 4% is the reduction in earning capacity does not warrant interference. MACA 1228/2011 5 5. No other contentions are raised. This appeal is , in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TOJUDGE MACA 1228/2011 6 ks. MACA 1228/2011 7 The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us against his claim of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for loss suffered by him on account of personal injury suffered in a motor accident which took place on 11/10/2005. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.76,058/- as per th details given in paragraph 14 of the judgment which we x tract below: The challenge is directed only againsst the quantum of compensation awarded. Calld upon to th specific, the elarnd counsel for the appellant contnds tht the Tribunal erred in reckoning the disability/reduction earning capacity at 40% only against the opinjion given by PW1, Doctor in Ext.A9 certificate that the appellant hav suffered disability to th tun of 7% in addition to an amount of Rs.8,000/-. Under th head of loss of amenitisi and disfiguration, th disability held the appellant to claim an amount of Rs..23040/- (300012x16x4/100) as compensation. th short contention is that the accident of rduction earning capacity rckoned by the Tribunal a s 4% is not MACA 1228/2011 8 proper. Actual physical disability is not c crucial in the assessment of compensation for reduction earning power . the reduction of the physical disability on the capacity to earn is th crucial input. the Doctor had certified that 7% is the disability on th basis of th following details given in the disability certificate, Ext.A9. 1 2) 3) the Tribunal approached th disability certificate issued by the Medical Officer individually and not as a member of th Board. The Tribunal further noted that the discharge summary does not reveal that there was any disability at the time of discharhge. Be that as it may the Tribunal felt persuade to a ccept 4% can be reckoned as extent of reduction earning capacity. the Tribunal did not accept the assessment that 7% si the extent of physical disbaility. Even assuing that 7%was th physical disability in th facts and circumstances of this case we are not persuaded to agree that reckoning 4% of the extent of reduction earning capacity is not proper or correct or that MACA 1228/2011 9 warranting appellate interference. In fact there was nothing placd befrore the court to show that disability had immediately led to any reduction earning of the appellant.IN any view of the amtter, we are of th opinion that the conclusion of the Tribunal that 4% of th reduction earning capacity does nsot warrant interference and no other contentions are raised. the appeal, in these circumstances, dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. MACA 1228/2011 10