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 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 1468 of 2010() ---------------------------------- OPMV.195/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- ARULVALLY, W/O.SANTHOSH RAJAN, AGED 35 YEARS, KOCHIKUNNEL HOUSE, MOOKKARTHAN VALAVU BHAGOM, PAMBANAR KARA, PEERUMEDU VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT PULICKAKUNNEL HOUSE, POOVARANY P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SIBY, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED YEARS, PUTHUVELIAKUNNEL HOUSE, KARADIKUZHI BHAGOM, PEERUMEDU VILLAGE. PIN 685515. 2. RADHA.S, HOUSE NO.VI/524, AMRITHA NIVAS, CARADYCOODY, PEERUMEDU VILLAGE. PIN 685515. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, START BUILDING, CHENNATTUMATTOM JN., KATTAPPANA. PIN 685505. ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.K.BABU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1468 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT R. BASANT,J. Claimant is the appellant. She, a young woman aged 33 years claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by her in a road traffic accident, which took place on 31.05.2006. She was an inpatient for 14 days. She suffered serious grievous injuries. Her left leg was amputated above the knee. She suffered permanent disability as a result of the accident. Against a total claim of Rs.15 lakhs, the Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs.6,92,620/- as per the details given in paragraph 9 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Part I Rs. Loss of earnings(4000X 6) 24,000/- Transport to Hospital 5,000/- Extra-nourishment 2,000/- Damages to clothing and articles 500/- Medical expense 42,500/- Bystander expense 15,000/- M.A.C.A. No.1468 of 2010 2 Part II Pain and suffering 30,000/- Permanent partial disability resulting in loss of earning capacity(4000X12X17X50/100) 4,08,000/- Disfigurement 10,000/- Loss of amenities 20,000/- Future expense 1,35,620/- Total 6,92,620/- 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the third respondent/Insurance Company, who has been made entirely liable under the impugned award to pay the compensation. The impugned award is assailed only on the ground of quantum of compensation. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads. 4. First of all the learned counsel contends that the extent of reduction in earning capacity assessed by the Tribunal at 50% is not fair reasonable or just. Learned counsel points out that above knee amputation of the left leg had resulted. In these M.A.C.A. No.1468 of 2010 3 circumstances, going by entry 19 of part 2 of schedule I of the Employees Compensation Act, the tribunal ought to have accepted the reduction in earning capacity at 60%. The Tribunal erred in reckoning the same as 50% only. Of course, the appellant had claimed that there was reduction in earning capacity to the extent of 70% but from the details available from Ext.A10, we are satisfied that the case of the appellant would appropriately fall under entry 19 and not under entry 18 of part 2 of the first schedule. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities to the 33 year old young woman/appellant (Rs.20,000/-) is grossly inadequate. 6. We take note of the various consequences of the disability suffered. Physical disability suffered results in two fold reflections on the life of the victim. It reduces the earning capacity. It also reduces the quality of enjoyment of life. For all dimensions of the impairment/reduction in the quality of life only an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. We are persuaded to agree that the said M.A.C.A. No.1468 of 2010 4 amount deserves to be raised. We are satisfied that compensation can be fixed at Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. 7. Though challenge is raised on various other heads, we are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded under any other head deserves/warrants interference. Counsel particularly argues that no amount has been awarded under the head of future medical treatment. We do note that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,35,620/- under the head of future expenses including expenses for the artificial legs. There is no specific evidence to indicate that any particular future treatment will also be necessary. In these circumstances, we hold that the amounts awarded under the other heads do not warrant interference. 8. The above discussions, lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.91,600/-as compensation in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, as shown below: M.A.C.A. No.1468 of 2010 5 1. Compensation for reduction in earning capacity :Rs.81,600.00 (4000X12X17X60/100= 4,89,600/- minus 4,08,000/-) 2. Loss of amenities : Rs.10,000.00 (30,000/-minus20,000/-) ------------------- Total : Rs. 91,600.00 = = = = = = = 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company points out that only 16 and not 17 can be accepted as the multiplier. We are unable to agree. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[(2009) 6 SCC 1211], multiplier in the case of death alone has been dealt with. The question of multiplier specifically in the case of permanent disablement-partial or total, has not been considered by their lordships in Sarla Varma. We are satisfied that so far as permanent disablement is concerned, the multiplier given against vertical column No.2 in the table/chart given under clause 1 of schedule II can safely be accepted. It is hence that we take the view that the multiplier 17 accepted by the Tribunal does not warrant interference. M.A.C.A. No.1468 of 2010 6 10. In the result: a. This appeal is allowed in part. b. We hold that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.91,600/-(Rupees ninety one thousand six hundred only) as compensation in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. 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. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE ln