IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 828 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.1315/2000 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.B.SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, KANIVELITHUNDIYIL HOUSE, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.JANARDHANAN SRI.MANURAJ. K.J RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. GEORGE MATHEW, MANAGING PARTNER, ANCHERIL AGENCIES, KOCHI-3. 2. MR.ANTONY, S/O.SAIMON, PALLIYATH VEETTIL, NEAR SOUDI SCHOOL, BEACH ROAD, FORTKOCHI. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH, KOCHI. 4. THE SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM AUTORICKSHAW THOZHILALI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO. 324, COCHIN-18. 5. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 SRI.T.M.CHANDY FOR R3 SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 828 of 2008-C ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 26/3/2000. He was driving an autorikshaw at the relevant time. His wife was a passenger in the vehicle. He suffered injuries including right wrist fracture. He was an inpatient for 16 days. He suffered permanent disability also. He was referred to the Medical Board by the Tribunal. As per Ext.A11 certificate issued by the Medical Board, he has suffered permanent physical disability which was assessed at 15% in Mc Bride's scale. He was treated with external fixator and bone grafting. He had wrist drop with loss of finger grip. The Medical Board opined that he needs tendon reconstruction to improve his hand function. 2. The Tribunal, against a claim of `2,07,000/-, awarded an amount of `1,05,447/- as compensation as per the details given below: M.A.C.A. No. 828 of 2008 -: 2 :- Head Amount awarded Medical expenses (supported by bills) Rs.29,647.00 Transportation & damage to clothes Rs. 1,000.00 Attendant expenses & extra nourishment Rs. 3,000.00 Shock, pain and sufferings Rs. 15,000.00 Loss of earning Rs. 4,000.00 (2000 x 2) Loss for permanent disability Rs. 46,800.00 (2000 x 12 x 13 x 15/100) Loss of amenities and convenience Rs. 4,000.00 Compensation for disfiguration Rs. 2,000.00 Total Rs.1,05,447.00 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the respondent/insurance company. The challenge is raised only on the ground of quantum of compensation. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal had gone grossly wrong in reckoning the monthly income of an autorikshaw driver in the year 2000 at `2,000/- only. This is grossly inadequate, contends counsel. This does not take into account the realities of life. Even in 1994, under Clause-6 of the 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunals are permitted to assume that even a non-earning person can be reckoned to earn `1,250/- per mensem. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that an amount of `3,000/- per M.A.C.A. No. 828 of 2008 -: 3 :- mensem can safely be assumed to be the monthly earnings of the appellant at the time of the accident. 4. The learned counsel then contends that the multiplier taken into reckoning by the Tribunal is incorrect. Only 13 was reckoned as the multiplier. The appellant was aged 38 years on the date of the accident. His date of birth as per his driving licence is 27/11/1962. In any view of the matter, the Tribunal erred in assuming the age of the appellant to be 45 years and in taking the multiplier as 13. The learned counsel relies on the driving licence and the electoral identity card which are placed before this Court for perusal. The same were not marked before the Tribunal. But the wound certificate also shows the age of the appellant to be 35 years. That is the first and prompt statement given to the Doctor immediately after the accident. The final report Ext.A3 submitted by the police also describes the appellant to be a person aged 38 years. Even in the absence of production of the specific and authentic documents before the Tribunal, we agree that the appellant can be reckoned as a person belonging to the age group of 35 to 40 years on the date of the accident. Consequently, following the decision in Sarla Verma v. DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121)], 15 can safely be accepted as the multiplier applicable. M.A.C.A. No. 828 of 2008 -: 4 :- 5. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the Tribunal did not realistically take into account the disability suffered by the appellant and its reflection on the quality of enjoyment in life. Under the composite head of loss of amenities and disfiguaration, only `6,000/- has been granted. This is grossly inadequate and painfully low, contends counsel. We agree with the learned counsel that a higher amount ought to have been awarded under that composite head. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amounts in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal: 1. Loss of earnings (`3000 x 2 minus `4,000/-) - ` 2,000/- 2. Compensation for reduction in earning capacity - `34,200/- (3000 x 12 x 15 x 15/100 = `81,000/- minus `46,800/-) 3. Loss of amenities including disfiguration - `14,000/- (`20,000/- minus `6,000/-) -------------- Total - `50,200/- ====== 7. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves modification/enhancement. M.A.C.A. No. 828 of 2008 -: 5 :- 8. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of `50,200/- (Rupees fifty thousand and two hundred only) in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. (c) We make it clear that the appellant shall be entitled for interest on the entire amount of compensation at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal. (d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge