IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1662 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.396/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ REJI,S/O NADESN, VALLAPPANATTU HOUE, OPP.SIDE OF KARAPPUZHA GOVT, H,S,KARAPPUZHA KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASHIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PRABASH, VETTUKUZHICHIRA HOUSE, NEAR MALIKAPEEDIKA BHAGAOM, RARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM- PIN-686003 2. SAJI,'GOPALAYM, BOAT JETTY ROAD, KOTTAYAM,-686001 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, KOTTAYAM,PIN-686001 ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JJ R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. NO: 1662 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th October, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries in a motor accident which took place on 21-6-2007. He had suffered multiple injuries. He was an inpatient for a period of ten days. He had allegedly suffered permanent disability. His disability was assessed by a medical board to which he was referred to a medical board which certified that 12% is the disability suffered. Appellant claimant is a driver by profession. Against a total claim of Rs.1,76,500/- the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.89,040/- as per details given in paragraph 11 of the impugned award which we extract below:- Sl.No: Head of claim Amount claimed (in rupees) Amount awarded (in rupees) Basic vital details in a nut shell 1 Tansportation 2000 1000 In view of the visits to the hospital 2 Extra nourishment 1500 1000 Nominal amount 3 Damage to clothings 1000 500 -DO- MACA 1662/2011 2 Sl.No: Head of claim Amount claimed (in rupees) Amount awarded (in rupees) Basic vital details in a nut shell 4 Bystander expenses 3000 1800 Bystander expense for 9 days at the rate of Rs.200/- per day 5 Medical expenses 15000 2400 As per Ext.A8 medical bills 6 Loss of earning 24000 14000 4 months income loss at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month 7 Pain and sufferings 35000 16500 In view of head injury and facture injuries 8 Loss of amenities 25000 9000 He must have lost many of the amenities as a result of the injuries 9 Loss of earning capacity due to disability 50000 42840 3,500x12x6x17 divided by 100 = 42,840/- 10 Loss of future income 20000 Not allowed Compensation for loss of earning and loss of earning capacity granted Total 176500 89040 ...... 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company which has been made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. The challenge is raised against the impugned award on two specific grounds. First of all it is contended that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering - Rs.16,500 is inadequate. Secondly it is argued that the quantum MACA 1662/2011 3 of compensation awarded under the loss of earning capacity due to disability is not just, fair and reasonable. The medical board has assessed the extent of disability to be 12%. The Tribunal had arbitrarily slashed it down to 6% while employing the multiplier multiplicand method. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even the monthly income has been reckoned only at Rs.3,500 for the appellant who is a driver by profession. 3. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering deserves or warrants interference. However, we do take note of the slashing down of extent of disability from 12% to 6% by the Tribunal. The disability was assessed by the medical board. The team of doctors in the medical board had certified the disability to be 12%. The impugned order reveals that there was neurological disability as certified in Ext.X1. There was physical disability including hearing loss of the left ear. Considering the employment of the appellant as a driver we are satisfied that the Tribunal in the instant case was not justified in not accepting the extent of disability certified by the medical board. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that 12% must have been reckoned as the extent of MACA 1662/2011 4 reduction of earning capacity to ascertain the quantum of loss under that head. The challenge on that ground succeeds. We are not persuaded to agree that amounts under any other head deserves or warrants interference. 4. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.42,840/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal as per details shown below:- Loss of earning capacity due to disability - Rs.42,840/- (3500x12x12x17/100 i.e 85680-42840) 5. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that proportionate costs has not been awarded as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu (2011(3) KLT 943). We are satisfied that proportionate costs for the entire amount awarded in the proceedings before the court below ought to be awarded as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu (2011(3) KLT 943). 6. In the result; a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.42,840/- (Rupees forty two thousand eight hundred and forty only) in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. MACA 1662/2011 5 c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period specified by the Tribunal in the impugned award. d) We direct that proportionate cost be paid to the claimant on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu (2011(3) KLT 943). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R. BASANT Judge Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj P.S.to Judge MACA 1662/2011 6