IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 530 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.654/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- LAWRENCE AJITH, S/O.JOHNSON, CHELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, COMBARAMUKKU, MATTANCHERRY KARA, MATTANCHERRY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O.AUGUSTINE, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR CHETTY ROAD, CHERANALLUR KARA, CHERANALLUR VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE IST FLOOR, THARAKANS, RAJAGIRI ROAD, KALAMASSERY. PIN 683 104. ADV. SRI.M.A.HAKIM SHAH FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.530 of 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He suffered personal injuries in a motor accident which occurred on 30/4/2000. He was aged 38 years on the date of the accident and is a Government employee employed in the Fisheries Department drawing a monthly income of about Rs.4,200/-. He suffered multiple fractures including fracture of the right humerus. He was an in-patient for a period of sixteen days. According to him, he had suffered permanent disability and he produced Ext.A11 certificate issued by a medical practitioner to show that he has suffered physical disability to the tune of 15%. The tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.80,224/- as per the details shown below: 1. Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.29,000/- (Against bills produced) 3. Damage to clothing Rs.250/- M.A.C.A.No.530/03 2 4. Extra nourishment Rs.5,000/- 5. Transport to hospital Rs.3,600/- (including bills produced) 6. Loss of earnings Rs.9,374/- (leave for 67 days) 7. Bystanders expenses Rs.3,000/- 8. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- 9. Compensation for loss/ reduction in earnings Rs.5,000/- capacity (only a global amount awarded) Total Rs.80,224/- 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is primarily aggrieved by the course adopted by the tribunal of awarding only a total amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for physical disability without resorting to the multiplier multiplicand method. The procedure adopted by the court below is incorrect and wrong. The appellant was aged 38 years on the date of the accident and Ext.A11 certificate must convince the court that physical disability has been suffered by the appellant - M.A.C.A.No.530/03 3 whatever be the percentage of such physical disability and the consequent reduction in earning capacity. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the tribunal appears to have accepted this in having awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities; but having done that, the tribunal proceeded to award only an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for disability and did not take into account the impact of the physical disability suffered on the earning capacity of the appellant. 3. We have considered Ext.A11 disability certificate. We are satisfied that the appellant who had suffered major fracture of the right humerus had suffered physical disability. The doctor who issued Ext.A11 has certified the disability to be 15%; but the doctor has not been examined and the disability certificate has not been satisfactorily proved. Moreover, what is certified in Ext.A11 is only the physical disability. Physical disability suffered by a person has two fold reflections on his life. It reduces the earning capacity of such individual. It reduces the quality of enjoyment of life which such victim can aspire to live thereafter. In the instant case, Rs.10,000/- has been awarded as compensation for loss of amenities - that is the reflection of the M.A.C.A.No.530/03 4 disability on the quality of enjoyment of life. But for reduction in earning capacity, no serious attempt was made to ascertain such loss, if any. A global amount of Rs.5,000/- was awarded. It appears to us that the tribunal was obviously guided by the fact that there is no immediate reduction in actual earnings for the appellant, a Govt. employee on account of the disability suffered by him. But, we note that the learned counsel for the appellant is correct in his submission that with the impairment of physical faculty, greater strain has to be employed to perform the same amount of work which the appellant would otherwise have done. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the amount of Rs.5,000/- can be reckoned as compensation for such extra efforts which the appellant would have to put in to perform the same amount of work with the disability suffered by him. But we find merit in the contention that for the impairment in the post retirement opportunities for re-employment consequent to the disability, the appellant is entitled to be compensated. Even though Ext.A11 certifies 15% to be the disability, we are satisfied that such disability would reduce the earning capacity of the appellant for the post retirement period (after 55 years) to the extent of 10%. In coming to this conclusion, we have gone M.A.C.A.No.530/03 5 through Ext.A11 disability certificate. We find it easy to assume that Rs.2000 can be reckoned as the multiplicand for such post retirement period of employment. For persons of the age group 55-60, 2nd schedule prescribes 8 as the multiplier. 10% is reckoned as the reduction in earning capacity by us. 4. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.19,200/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 8 x 10/100) (Rupees Nineteen thousand and two hundred only) in addition to the amounts already awarded. Needless to say, the appellant shall be entitled to interest on the entire amount of compensation from the date of the petition at the rate directed by the tribunal. 5. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.530/03 6 M.A.C.A.No.530/03 7 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009