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 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 258 of 2006(G) ---------------------- O.P(MV) NO.578 of 2000 OF M.A.C.T, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ---------------------------------- P. MOHANAN, S/O. PARAMBU, PULAYAN VILAKAM, NEAR CHUDUKADU KSHETHRAM, PACHALLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-27. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM-23. 2. A.M. BASHEER, S/O. ALI THAMPY, "CHAITHRAM", T.C.35/495, VALLAKKADAVU, TRIVANDRUM-23. ADV. N.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR FOR R1 ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.258 of 2006 ***************************** Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 27.12.1999. Against a claim of Rs.2,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.67,000/- as per the details given below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Loss of earning Rs. 6,000.00 (given for 4 months) 2 Medical and miscellaneous Rs. 5,000.00 3 Bystander's expenses Rs. 1,500.00 4 Transportation expenses Rs. 1,000.00 5 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000.00 6 Damage to clothing Rs. 250.00 7 Pain and suffering Rs.15,000.00 8 Loss of amenities and conveniences etc. Rs.10,000.00 9 Compensation for permanent continued disability Rs.27,000.00 Total Rs.67,000.00 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the M.A.C.A No.258 of 2006 2 claimant/appellant and the 1st respondent/KSRTC. Challenge is raised against the impugned award only on the ground of inadequacy of quantum. The appellant was aged 42 years. He had suffered serious injuries including head injury with sub dural and subarachnoid hemorrhage. There was comminuted fracture of the right femur. Skeletal traction followed by open reduction and internal fixation was done. He was an inpatient at the Medical College Hospital from 27.12.1999 to 06.02.2000. He had suffered permanent disability. There was malunited fracture of the supra condylear right femur. There was shortening of the right leg by 1”. There was partial ankylosis of right knee joint with limited motion. The permanent disability was assessed at 13% by PW1, a doctor. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.1,500/- is incorrect and inadequate. The claim of the appellant that he was earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem ought to have been accepted, contends the learned counsel. We take note of clause 6 of the Second Schedule. We take note of Lata Wadhwa V. State of Bihar [AIR 2001 SC 3218] and Laxmi Devi & Ors. V. M.A.C.A No.258 of 2006 3 Mohammad Tabbar & Anr. [2008 ACJ 1488]. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.2,750/- can be reckoned as the monthly income. 4. The learned counsel then contends that under the head of bystander expenses and extra nourishment, only a total amount of Rs.2,500/- has been paid. The appellant was inpatient for a period of 45 days at the Medical College Hospital. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.100/- each per day can be awarded under the heads of bystander expenses and extra nourishment. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal had erred in reckoning only 10% as the reduction in earning capacity as against 13% certified by PW1 in Ext.A8 disability certificate. We take note of the details about the alleged disability given in the certificate – extracted by the Tribunal in the impugned award. We are of opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error warranting appellate interference in coming to the conclusion that 10% can be reckoned as the reduction in earning capacity as against13% physical disability borne out by Ext.A8 and oral evidence of PW1. The claimant/appellant was present before the Tribunal also to M.A.C.A No.258 of 2006 4 tender evidence as PW2, we do note. 6. We further note that as per the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121] 14 and not 15 is the correct multiplier applicable to persons who are of the age group 40-45 years. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amount as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. i) Loss of earnings : Rs. 5,000.00 [(2,750X4=11,000) minus 6,000] ii) Bystander's expenses and extra nourishment (for 45 days as inpatient in the hospital) : Rs. 6,500.00 [(45X200) 9,000 minus 2,500 (1500 plus 1,000)] iii) Reduction in earning capacity : Rs.19,200.00 [2750X12X14X10/100 = 46,200 minus 27,000] --------------------- Total : Rs.30,700.00 ========= 8. We are not satisfied that the impugned award warrants interference on any other ground. M.A.C.A No.258 of 2006 5 9. 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.30,700/- (Rupees Thirty thousand and seven 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) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/