IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 280 of 2006() ---------------------- O.P.(MV) NO.1988 OF 2001 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, KOTTAYAM. APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT-PETITIONER ---------------------------------- JOSEPH PHILIP @ PHILIP, S/O.JOSEPH, MALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTASSERY KARA, PERUMBAIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JUSTIN GEORGE, S/O.K.M.GEORGE, KOTTUMMEL HOUSE, PERUNNA.P.O, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. VINOD SCARIA, KOTTUMMEL HOUSE, PERUNNA WEST.P.O, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 280 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant is the appellant. He, a 65 year old person, claimed compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 23/6/2011. Against a total claim of `2,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of `34,877/- as per the details given below: 1. Treatment expenses - `5,377/- 2. Bystander and extra nourishment - `1,000/- 3. Transport to hospital - `1,000/- 4. Loss of earning - `4,000/- 5. Pain and suffering - `6,500/- 6. Compensation for disability - `12,000/- (global) 7. Loss of amenities - `5,000/- -------------- Total - 34,877/- ====== 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and M.A.C.A. No. 280 of 2006 -: 2 :- the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. Challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 3. We note that the claimant was a 65 year old person. He claimed to be employed as a Security Guard. He claimed that his monthly income was `3,600/-. He had suffered multiple fractures including fracture with dislocation of the right elbow and fracture lower end of left radius. He was an inpatient for a period of 5 days. He was treated by plate and 'K' wire fixation. Fracture of left radius was treated by application of plaster cast. He allegedly suffered permanent disability to the tune of 14%. The disability certificate was produced as Ext.A8. The Doctor who issued the certificate was not examined. 4. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant, first of all, contends that the Tribunal erred in assuming that the monthly income of the appellant/claimant is only `1,000/-. Enforced unemployment for a period of 4 months was accepted. The Tribunal did accept that some disability has resulted. The Tribunal had the opportunity to see the claimant who was examined as P.W.1. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even in respect of non- earning person, even in 1994, law permits drawal of a M.A.C.A. No. 280 of 2006 -: 3 :- presumption that the monthly income can be assumed to be `1,250/-. The accident in this case had taken place in 2001. We take all the relevant inputs into account and assume that the monthly income of the claimant can be assumed to be `1,500/-. 5. For pain and suffering, only an amount of `6,500/- has been awarded. Considering the nature of injuries and the age of the claimant, we are satisfied that the amount of compensation under the head of pain and suffering can be enhanced to `10,000/-. 6. The disability certificate has been produced and that shows that the appellant has suffered disability to the tune of 14%. Even though we accept the certificate as indicating reduction in earning capacity, the appellant will be entitled only for marginal enhancement. For loss of amenities, considering the nature of the disability and the age of the appellant, we are satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded (`5,000/-) can be enhanced to `10,000/-. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of `11,100/- (Rupees eleven thousand and one hundred only) as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal: 1. Pain and suffering (`10,000/- minus `6,500/-) - `3,500/- M.A.C.A. No. 280 of 2006 -: 4 :- 2. Loss of earnings (4 x `1,500/- minus `4,000/-) - `2,000/- 3. Compensation for permanent disability (`1,500/- x 12 x 5 x 14/100 - `12,600/- minus `12,000/-) - `600/- 4. Loss of amenities (`10,000/- minus `5,000/-) - `5,000/- ------------ Total - `11,100/- ====== 8. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that interest has been awarded only at the 6% per annum. We are satisfied that interest deserves to be awarded at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Proportionate cost on the entire amount of compensation in the proceedings before the Tribunal as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943) is also liable to be awarded. 9. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed in part. (b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of `11,100/- (Rupees eleven thousand and one hundred 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 of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of payment/realisation. M.A.C.A. No. 280 of 2006 -: 5 :- (d) We make it clear that the appellant shall be entitled to proportionate cost in the proceedings before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). (e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- V. CHITAMBARESH (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge M.A.C.A. No. 280 of 2006 -: 6 :- R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- C.M. Appl. NO.414 of 2006 in M.A.C.A. No. 280 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 ORDER This petition is to condone the delay of 183 days in filing the M.A.C.A. Heard. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. R. BASANT (Judge) V. CHITAMBARESH (Judge) Nan/ M.A.C.A. No. 280 of 2006 -: 7 :-