IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1410 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.302/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SARANYA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.VASUDEVAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, ADIKKOLLY, AMARKKUNNI POST, PULPALLY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., M.G.T.BUILDINGS, KALPETTA NORTH, (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-12/B 657 TATA SUMO). BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R-1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1410 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Claimant is the appellant. She was a minor girl aged 12 years, a student, on the date of the accident. She claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by her in a motor accident which took place on 21.4.2003. She had suffered multiple injuries including fracture 6th and 7th ribs (right), fracture right public ramus, communited compound fracture right femur and degloving injury involving right thigh and inguinal region. She was an inpatient for a long period of 64 days in 4 spells. She had allegedly suffered permanent disability. She was referred to a medical board and the medical board consisting of members including CW.1 assessed the extent of physical disability to be 12%. The Tribunal accepted the same. The Tribunal reckoned the same as the possible reduction in earning capacity also. Against a total claim of Rs.5 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.1,82,500/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 9 of the impugned award which we extract below:- Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Medical and miscellaneous expenses Rs. 87,600.00 2. Bystander expenses Rs, 16,000.00 MACA No.1410 of 2011 2 3. Transportation expenses Rs. 5,000.00 4. Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000.00 5. Damage to clothing etc. Rs. 500.00 6. Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000.00 7. Compensation for permanent disability (1500 x 12 x 15 x 12/100) Rs. 32,400.00 8. Loss of amenities and conveniences etc. Rs. 10,000.00 9. Loss of studies Rs. 5,000.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL Rs. 1,82,500.00 ========================================== The insurance company is made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Challenge 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 appellan challenges the impugned award on various grounds. First of all, it is contended that the Tribunal erred grossly in reckoning Rs.1500/- as the monthly earnings. The accident had taken placed on 21.4.2003. A non-earning person like the minor petitioner from 1994 can be assumed under Clause 6 of the II schedule of the MACA No.1410 of 2011 3 Motor Vehicles Act to earn an income of Rs.1250/-. We are satisfied that Rs.3000/- can safely be reckoned as the probable monthly income of the appellant while ascertaining the compensation for reduction in earning capacity. 15 has rightly been reckoned as the multiplier going by the 2nd schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Under the head loss of amenities, only an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal must have been taken into consideration all other dimensions of physical disability (other than the reduction in earning capacity) while fixing the quantum of compensation under the head of loss of amenities. The appellant is a minor girl who suffered disfiguring injuries on her thigh and private parts. The prospects of a healthy married life would necessarily be affected. In these circumstances, the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal does not represent fair, just and reasonable compensation, contends counsel. We agree. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant finally contends that under the head extra nourishment, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant was an inpatient for 64 days and had continued treatment thereafter, only an amount of Rs.1,000/- has been MACA No.1410 of 2011 4 awarded. We are satisfied that the appellant deserves to be awarded a higher amount of compensation under this head which we fix at Rs.5000/-. 6. We are not persuaded to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded under any other heads. 7. On the basis of the above discussions, the appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.51,400/- as compensation as shown below in addition to the amount amount awarded by the Tribunal. 1. Reduction in earning capacity (3000 x 12 x 15 x 12/100 = 64,800 minus 32,400) Rs. 32,400.00 2. Loss of amenities (25,000 minus 10,000) Rs. 15,000.00 3. Extra nourishment (5000 minus 1000) Rs. 4,000.00 TOTAL Rs. 51,400.00 8. In the result:- a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs51,400/- (Rupees fiftyone thousand four hundred only) in MACA No.1410 of 2011 5 addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal. d) The proportionate cost for the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be awarded on the entire of amount of compensation calculated as per the dictum in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj. R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- C.M.Appln.No.2154 of 2011 in M.A.C.A.No.1410 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed to condone the delay of 362 days in filing the appeal. Claimant is a minor child. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company which has been made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.