IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1417 of 2011() ----------------------- OP(MV).701/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER -------------- ROSEMOL, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.IGNATIOUS, MOOKEN HOUSE, POOTHOLE DESOM OF ARNATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GEORGE, S/O. IGNATIOUS,MOOKEN HOUSE POOTHOLE DESOM, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, MICRO OFFICE 11/342 SHOP NO.7 GOLDEN COMPLEX, CALICUT ROAD,GUDALUR, THE NILGIRIS, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R2 SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R2 SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1417 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. Claimant is the appellant. She, a woman aged 35 years and a tailor by profession, claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by her in a motor accident which took place on 28.7.2006. She had suffered fracture of the tip of the left femur, supracondyler fracture of right femur, fracture right tibia and fracture T6 and T7 vertebra. She was an inpatient for a period of 26 days. She had allegedly suffered permanent disability which under Ext.A8, a certificate issued by the medical practitioner, was 30.69% (whole body). Against her total claim limited to Rs.4 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,90,293/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 7 of the impugned award, which we extract below:- Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Loss of earning Rs. 6,000.00 2. Medical and miscellaneous expenses Rs.95,993.00 3. By-stander expenses Rs. 2,600.00 4. Transportation expenses Rs. 500.00 5. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000.00 M.A.C.A.No.1417 of 2011 2 6. Loss of disabilities (2000 x 12 x 17 x15/100) Rs.61,200.00 7. Loss of consortium - 8. Loss of love and affection - 9. Loss of estate - 10. Loss of amenities and conveniences etc. Rs. 4,000.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL Rs.1,90,293.00 ===================================== The insurance company was made entirely liable to satisfy the award. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the Tribunal was unrealistic in reckoning Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income of the claimant in July, 2006. The learned counsel wants this Court to take note of the inference of prudence permitted from 1994 M.A.C.A.No.1417 of 2011 3 under clause 6 of II schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. At any rate, the Tribunal should have taken note of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Latha Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 3218) and Laxmi Devi & Ors. v. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr. (2008 ACJ 1488). Those decisions are authority for the proposition that even in the absence of any better evidence, a non-earning home maker as also an unskilled labourer can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that Rs.3,000/- per mensem can be reckoned as monthly income. This would consequently lead to enhancement in the amount awarded under the loss of earnings as also the loss of earning capacity. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the Tribunal has erred in accepting only 15% as the extend of reduction in earning capacity. Counsel argues that this slashing down of physical disability from 30.69% certified in Ext.A8 to a reduction to 15% is not justified. Ext.A9 was pressed into court, but the author was not examined. The M.A.C.A.No.1417 of 2011 4 appellant did not get his disability assessed by the medical board. However, the Tribunal looked into Ext.A9 disability certificate and came to the conclusion that there must have been reduction in earning capacity to the extent of 15%. On the available materials, we find no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. The appellant will have to blame herself for not making better evidence available before the Tribunal to authentically assess the extent of reduction in earning capacity. The learned counsel timely contended that at any rate even after finding that there was 15% disability, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities and conveniences to the appellant. We are satisfied that taking the totality of relevant circumstances into account, an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded under the head loss of amenities and conveniences. 5. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.44,600/- as compensation as per the details given below:- M.A.C.A.No.1417 of 2011 5 i) Loss of earnings (3000 x 3 = 9000 minus 6000) Rs.3,000.00 ii) Reducation in earning capacity (3000 x 12 x 17 x 15/100 = Rs.91,800 minus Rs.61,200 Rs.30,600.00 iii) Loss of amenities and conveniences (15,000 minus 4000) Rs.11,000.00 TOTAL Rs.44,600.00 We are not persuaded to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded under any other heads. 6. In the result:- a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.44,600/- (Rupees Fortyfour thousand six 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. M.A.C.A.No.1417 of 2011 6 d) The proportionate cost for the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be awarded on the entire of amount of compensation and the same shall be calculated as per the dictum in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.