IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 1546 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.1722/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- SATHEESAN.T.C., THOTTUMKAL KUNNUMPURATHU MARIAPPALLY P.O., NATTAKOM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUNNY ABRAHAM, IRUPATHILPARAMBU, CHETTIKUNNU BHAGAM, NATTAKOM P.O. 2. K.K.GOPI, THEKKEL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1546 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which occurred on 6/10/2000. He claimed an amount of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation. He was an A.C. Mechanic aged 32 years on the date of the accident. He claimed that he was earning an income of Rs.4,800/- per mensem from such employment. The employment/salary certificate was produced. He had suffered fracture of the left talus. He was an inpatient for a period of 14 days in two spells. After the last spell of hospitalisation, he was discharged with a plaster cast in his leg. He had allegedly suffered physical disability of 15%. It was held that such physical disability M.A.C.A. No. 1546 of 2005 -: 2 :- would result in 12% reduction in earning capacity. 2. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1. Exts.A1 to A20 were marked. The learned Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a total amount of Rs.1,18,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as per the details shown below: 1. Loss of earning (6 x 2500) - Rs.15,000/- 2. Transportation - Rs.1,000/- 3. Medical expenses - Rs.3,000/- 4. Bystander's expenses - Rs.3,000/- 5. Pain and suffering - Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of amenities - Rs.25,000/- 7. Loss of earnings (2500 x 12 x 12/100 x 17)- Rs.61,200/- ------------------- Total - Rs.1,18,200/- ======== 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which M.A.C.A. No. 1546 of 2005 -: 3 :- the appellants wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/- is not justified at all. It is submitted that the certificate issued by the employer must have been accepted by the Tribunal. We are unable to agree. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has committed no error warranting appellate interference in accepting Rs.2,500/- as the probable monthly income of the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then submits that the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the appellant would have been involuntarily unemployed for a period of 8 months ought to have granted Rs.20,000/- as compensation for loss of earning and the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.15,000/- as compensation for loss of earning for the simple reason that the claim was only for Rs.15,000/-. The learned counsel contends that, in these circumstances, on the finding recorded by the Tribunal itself the appellant is entitled for a M.A.C.A. No. 1546 of 2005 -: 4 :- further amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of earning. 5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the contrary, contends that the total amount awarded by the Tribunal is certainly fair, reasonable and just and that the same does not warrant interference. The learned counsel points out that the amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. 6. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we are of the view that a further amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded under the head of loss of earning which amount we find is admissible on the basis of of the findings recorded by the Tribunal itself. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the Tribunal erred in granting interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Relying on precedents, it is contended that interest must have been awarded at the rate of 7.5% per annum at least. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the M.A.C.A. No. 1546 of 2005 -: 5 :- appellant is entitled a further amount of Rs.5,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. We further direct that the entire compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 9. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. R. BASANT (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) Nan/ M.A.C.A. No. 1546 of 2005 -: 6 :-