IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 592 of 2002() ------------------------------- OP(MV).76/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- RAJENDRAN,S/O.APPA,RESIDING AT PALLIKUNNU, P.O.KASARAGOD,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SRI.PONGAL BALAN,S/O.KORAN,54 YEARS, PILATHARA, P.O.CHERUTHAZHAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN,SC KSRTC. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.592 OF 2002 ------------------------------------- Dated 28th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant/claimant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident on 6.1.1998. He filed an application for compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/=. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,04,030/= after holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent driver of the vehicle owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. 2. Claimant was aged 26 on the date of the accident. According to him, he was going to invite his friens for his marriage. But, consequent to the accident, his marriage did not take place. Ext.A2 is the wound certificate. Medical Board assessed 45% permanent disability. After seeing the claimant Tribunal found as follows: “Ext.A8 disability certificate issued from the medical board shows that the petitioner is having 45% permanent disability. The petitioner sustained brachial plexus injury, fracture Transverse process of right T, vertebra and head injury. PWs, Dr.K.K.Varghese, deposed that the petitioner is having 100% disability for his right MFA.592/2002 2 hand. He cannot move his right hand.” But, Tribunal did not award compensation on a multiplier method. According to the claimant, he was employed as a cashier in a private firm and his monthly income was Rs.3,000/=. He was aged 26 at the time of accident. He examined the proprietor of the firm where he was employed to prove that he was getting Rs.3,000/= per month. Tribunal found that he might have taken rest for three months and Rs.9,000/= was awarded for actual loss of earnings. That shows that Tribunal has accepted Rs.3,000/= as his monthly income. His right hand was completely useless. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act loss of earning capacity fixed for amputation through shoulder joint is 90% and for loss of a hand or of the thumb and four fingers of one hand or amputation from 11.43 Cms. below tip of olecranon is 60%. Medical board certified only 45% permanent disability. We are of the opinion that compensation ought to have been granted for at least 45% loss of earning capacity on the basis of the certificate issued by medical board as his right hand become completely useless. He was aged 26. As per the second schedule, 18 is the apt multiplier. If that be so, compensation payable will be Rs.2,91,600/= (3000 x 12 x 45 x 18). Tribunal has granted only Rs.1,50,000/=. 100 So, additional compensation payable under this head will be MFA.592/2002 3 Rs.1,41,600/=. It is submitted that Tribunal has not granted any compensation for loss of marriage prospects and no amount was awarded for future medical expenses. Actual medical expenses were reimbursed by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the amount awarded for pain and suffering and all other heads are very low. However, considering the total amount and interest awarded, we are of the opinion that no enhancement is needed under other heads. The above additional amount of Rs.1,41,600/= should be deposited by the third respondent insurance company, over and above the decreed amount by the Tribunal, with 7% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. The appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks