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 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 1668 of 2004(C) ----------------------- OPMV.1219/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER ---------------------- FATHIMA, D/O.HAMZA, 18 YEARS, KALINAPURATH HOUSE, P.O.KURICHI, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. A.P.MUHAMMED, S/O.MAMMAD, RESIDING AT AMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KUNNAAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. KAPPI THOTTATHIL BABU, S/O.KRISHNAN, 34 YEARS, KOLADI AMSOM P.O.KOLLUR. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., CHEROOTTI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ************************* M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2004 ****************************** Dated this the 19th day of January 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. She had suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 26.06.1996. The lorry involved in the accident had run over her right leg. She had suffered crush injuries including multiple fracture. She was aged 11 years at the time of the accident. Her right leg below the knee had to be amputated. She has thus suffered permanent physical disability. The permanent physical disability was assessed and evaluated at 40% by a Medical Board to which the question was referred by the Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs proceeded to award an amount of Rs.1,67,500/- as total compensation payable along with interest and cost as per the details shown below: Pain and suffering : Rs. 15,000/- Bystander's expenses (150 X 70) : Rs. 10,500/- Transport to hospital : Rs. 2,000/- M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2004 2 Loss of education, marriage prospects and loss of amenities (Rs.25,000/- + Rs.20,000/-) : Rs. 45,000/- Reduction in earning capacity (1,250 X 12 X 15 X 40/100) : Rs. 90,000/- ...................... Total : Rs.1,67,500/- ...................... 3. The claimant/appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is painfully and perversely low. The lorry had run over the legs of the minor child. Multiple injuries including fractures were suffered. She was in the hospital for a period of 70 days. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that a higher amount of compensation is payable under the head of pain and suffering. We fix the amount at Rs.25,000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred grossly in looking for documentary evidence ritualistically to prove medical expenses. 70 days' hospitalisation is proved. The nature of the injuries suffered and the consequent amputation are proved without any trace of doubt. It M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2004 3 would be idle for the Tribunals to expect the parents to maintain meticulous account supported by vouchers to prove all medical expenses. Such ritualistic insistence compels the claimants to cook up fake documents later. To avoid that possibility, reasonable amounts under the head of medical expenses must be awarded ordinarily even without specific documentary evidence to support the claims. We agree with the learned counsel. Ensuring that only the minimum indisputable amounts are paid, direction for payment can be issued without artificially and unritualistically insisting on documents to support the claim. So reckoned, we are satisfied that a higher amount of compensation can be awarded under the head of medical and miscellaneous expenses for the period of 70 days of hospitalisation and thereafter as an outpatient. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.10,000/- can safely be awarded under this head. 5. The counsel argues that the multiplicand reckoned by the Tribunal to arrive at the reduction in earning capacity is too low. It is true that if the claim were under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, a non earning minor can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.1,250/- per mensem. But the young age of the child must be taken into consideration. The probable M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2004 4 improvement in prospects must have been taken into consideration. In any view of the matter, the Tribunal should have reckoned a higher amount as multiplicand, argues the counsel. 6. In the circumstances of the case, we find merit in the contention. We are satisfied, taking into all circumstances, that Rs.1,500/- per mensem must have been reckoned as the multiplicand with the probable potential monthly earning of the victim/claimant. 7. The injured was a minor girl on the date of the accident. It is trite that physical disability suffered shall have two pronged reflection on the life of an individual. It would have an impact on the earning capacity of the individual. Simultaneously and parallelly it will have an impact on the quality of enjoyment of the life of the victim. An appropriate amount in addition to compensation for reduction in earning capacity, we are satisfied, is liable to be paid for the loss of amenities. 8. The Court must realistically take into account all possible reflections on the impairment of the quality of life. The child would not have been able to enjoy the pursuits of a child. M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2004 5 Later in life, her marriage prospects would be affected. The quality of enjoyment of life, either as a spinster or as a married woman, would be affected because of the impairment in the physical faculty. An amount of Rs.45,000/- has been awarded under the composite head of loss of education and marriage prospects. But we are persuaded to agree, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that a further amount of Rs.30,000/- (total Rs.75,000/-) must have been awarded under the composite head of loss of education and marriage prospects. 9. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.63,000/- (Rupees Sixty three thousand only). i) Pain and suffering (Rs.25000 minus Rs.15000) : Rs.10,000.00 ii) Medical and miscellaneous expenses (Rs.10000 minus Rs.5000) : Rs. 5,000.00 iii) Loss of amenities Rs.75000 minus Rs.45000) : Rs.30,000.00 iv) Reduction in earning capacity [(1500 X 12 X 15 X 40/100) Rs.108000 minus Rs.90000 : Rs.18,000.00 ..................... Total : Rs.63,000.00 ..................... M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2004 6 10. No other contentions are raised. In the result: a) This M.A.C.Appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.63,000/- (Rupees Sixty three thousand only) in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal; c) Needless to say, interest shall be payable on the entire amount of compensation as directed by the Tribunal from the date of the accident to the date of payment; d) All other direction of the Tribunal are upheld. The Tribunal shall issue fresh directions regarding release/deposit. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-