IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1311 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.44/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT: ORIGINAL PETITIONER -------------- P.T.VENUGOPAL. S/O.THILAKAN PALLATHU HOUSE, KOOTTUKAD VADAKKUMPURAM.P.O., CHEDAMANGALAM. PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) RESPONDENTS: --------------- ORIGINAL 1ST RESPONDENT: (1) P.D.THOMAS S/O. DEVASSIA PULICKAL HOUSE, PTMS ERATTUPETTA.P.O. PALAI, KOTTAYAM-686001. ORIGINAL 2ND RESPONDENT (2) SIBI S/O THOMAS PODOOR VEETTIL, MADUKKAKARA MUNDAKAYAM.P.O. PIN 686 001. NORTH ERUMELY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. ORIGINAL 3RD RESPONDENT (3) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDINGS, MAIN ROAD, KOTTAYAM.P.O. PIN 686 001. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 31/10/2005. He had suffered injury to the vertebra and also head injury. He has suffered quadriplegia. He was an in- patient for a period of ten days. He has been rendered unable to move after the accident. A medical board to whom he was referred assessed the disability to be 100% as per Ext.A6. He was employed as a casual labourer. Against a claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.5,58,100/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 7 of the impugned award which we extract below: Sl.No. Head Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount granted (Rs.) 1. Medical expenses 1,00,000 83,100 (A5 series) 2. Transportation 50,000 3,000 3. Loss of earning 12,000 12,000 (Rs.2,000x6) 4. Pain and suffering 2,00,000 75,000 5. Loss of amenities 1,00,000 25,000 M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 2 Sl.No. Head Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount granted (Rs.) 6. Compensation for permanent disability and disfiguration 3,00,000 3,60,000 (2000 x 12 x 15 x 100/100) Total 5,58,100 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The insurance company has been made entirely liable to satisfy the award. The challenge in this appeal is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on various grounds. First of all, it is contended that the tribunal has erred grossly in reckoning the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2,000/-. The accident had taken place on 31/10/2005. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in any view of the matter, the monthly income of the appellant must have been reckoned at Rs.3,000/-. The claim was modestly staked that his monthly income was Rs.3,000/-. In any view of the matter, the tribunal is not justified in reckoning the monthly income below Rs.3,000/-. The appellant was a married man and he and his family were depending upon the income of the appellant to keep M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 3 body and soul together. In any view of the matter, therefore, Rs.3,000/- must have been reckoned as the monthly income, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the presumption of prudence permitted under clause 6 of the second schedule. The learned counsel also presses into service the dictum in Lata Wadhwa and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2001 SC 3218] and Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar [2008 ACJ 1488] under which the Supreme Court has held that even a non- earning home maker as also an unskilled manual worker can safely be assumed to earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per month. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that Rs.3,000/- per month can safely be reckoned as the monthly income of the claimant/appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then submits that only an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. The learned counsel for the insurance company Adv.Sri.Rajan P. Kaliyath immediately points out that a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities and pain and sufferings. In these circumstances, the amounts awarded under those heads do not M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 4 warrant interference, it is submitted. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant then submits that no amount has been awarded under the head of extra nourishment and bystander expenses. From the date of the accident, the appellant has been in need of the services of a bystander. The disability certificate Ext.A6 clearly suggests that the appellant, in order to live, will have to depend upon the help and services of a bystander. Reasonable amount of compensation ought to be awarded under the head of extra nourishment and bystander's expenses during the period of treatment. Bystander expenses for life will also have to be awarded, contends the counsel. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that Rs.3,000/- can be reckoned as the monthly income. The acceptance of such a monthly income will have a reflection on the compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings as also compensation for reduction in earning capacity identified by the multiplier- multiplicand method. We are in agreement that an amount at the rate of Rs.100/- per day under each head deserves to be awarded as compensation for extra nourishment and bystander's M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 5 expenses for the period of treatment. The evidence clearly suggests that the appellant will have to completely depend on a bystander for the rest of his life. Considering the nature of the disability suffered by him, we are satisfied that compensation deserves to be awarded under this head also. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.2,26,000/- as shown below as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. i) Loss of earnings Rs.6,000/- [Rs.18,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 6) minus Rs.12,000/-] ii) Compensation for reduction in Rs.1,80,000/- earning capacity [Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 15 x 100/100) minus Rs.3,60,000/-] iii) Extra nourishment and bystander Rs.2,000/- expenses during the period of treatment (10 days x Rs.200/-) iv) Bystander's expenses Rs.40,000/- (for the rest of the life from the date of completion of treatment) --------------------- Total Rs.2,28,000/- ========= 8. We are not persuaded to agree that the impugned award warrants interference on any other ground. M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 6 9. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.2,28,000/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty eight thousand only) in addition to the amount 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 as specified by the tribunal. d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 7 M.A.C.A.No.1311 of 2011 8 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010