IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1024 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.953/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/APPLICANT --------------------------------- RAJENDRAN, S/O.MASILLAMANI, AGED 56 YEARS, BEENA NIVAS, HOUSE NO,.60, NEERAZHI LANE, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (DIED) ADDL: 2. ELIZABETH, W/O. RAJENDRAN, AGED 57 YEARS, PANTHAPLAVILA VEEDU, VAXHUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM-695 121. 3. LEENA, D/O. ELIZABETH, AGED 30 YEARS -DO- -DO- 4. LISSY, D/O. ELIZABETH, AGED 27 YEARS, -DO- -DO- IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 17/11/08 IN I.A.NO.3089/08. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9/2/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant before the Tribunal had preferred this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the original appellant expired and additional appellants 2 to 4 being the legal heirs of the deceased appellant have come on record. The appeal is directed against the amount awarded to the original appellant by the Tribunal for the loss suffered by him in a motor accident. The appellant expired on 26/11/06 during the pendency of this appeal, it is submitted. 2. There is no dispute now about the accident or the injury suffered. The claimant was a tailor, it was contended. An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed as compensation. In fact, the claim was limited to Rs.1,50,000/- though the actual M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 -: 2 :- loss suffered exceeded Rs.1.95 lakhs as averred in the petition. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.82,350/- as compensation. According to the appellants, the amount awarded is totally insufficient. The deceased/1st appellant had suffered serious injuries and had undergone three spells of hospitalisation from 22/3/98 to 10/4/98; 13/4/98 to 21/4/98 and 23/6/98 to 1/7/98 as per the treatment records produced. The disability was assessed at 25%. One of the kidneys of the deceased/1st appellant had to be removed as a result of the injury suffered. The percentage of disability was assessed at 25% under Ext.A15. But the Tribunal reckoned only 20% as the reduction in earning. For loss of amenities of life compensation was awarded only at Rs.15,000/-. 3. The appellants assail the impugned award on various grounds. First of all it is contended that though the appellant had been undergoing hospitalisation in three spells from 22/3/98 to 1/7/98, no satisfactory amount has been awarded towards medical expenses. We note that for incidental and medical expenses an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded. The M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 -: 3 :- learned counsel submits that this is grossly inadequate considering the nature of injuries and the period of hospitalisation. The learned counsel mainly attacks the amount of compensation awarded under the head of disability and loss of amenities. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, reckoning of the multiplicand at Rs.1,500/- per mensem is totally unacceptable. Similarly, it is contended that there was unjustified reduction of the percentage of disability from 25% to 20%. The deceased/1st appellant was a tailor and that can be discerned from Ext.A15 disability certificate. The same is also revealed from the oral evidence of P.W.1. The learned counsel further contends that the injuries suffered had impaired the quality of enjoyment of life. The appellant expired prematurely on 26/11/06. In these circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded for reduction in earning and loss of amenities of life must be enhanced, it is urged. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has also been heard. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was no convincing and acceptable evidence about the age, M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 -: 4 :- employment and income of the 1st claimant. It is, in these circumstances, that the Tribunal reckoned Rs.1,500/- as monthly income. 5. We have rendered our anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Though there was no specific materials to show the actual quantum of expenses incurred for the medical treatment, reasonable inferences could certainly have been drawn going by the nature of injuries suffered, the procedures undergone and the period of hospitalisation. In three spells the appellant/injured underwent treatment as an inpatient. One kidney had to be removed. He was in the hospital for a period of exceeding 38 days in three spells. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded as compensation for medical and incidental expenses is not sufficient and a total amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded under this head. 6. Similarly, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased who was a tailor must at least have M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 -: 5 :- been earning an income of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. The fact that he was a tailor and the further fact that the additional appellants – wife and children were in all, were depending on such income in addition to the deceased/injured can also be taken into consideration. We agree that an amount of Rs.2,000/- can safely be reckoned as monthly income of the injured/claimant. Similarly, while computing the compensation for loss of amenities, we must take note of the fact that one kidney had to be removed. The impact of this consequence on the health and life expectancy of the injured/claimant must also be taken into account. We are satisfied that under the head of loss of amenities an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded. 7. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the following further amount by way of compensation: (i) Medical expenses - Rs.5,000/- (instead of Rs.2,000/- awarded) (ii) Reduction in earnings consequent to the disability - Rs.13,200/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 11 x 20/100 - Rs.52,800/- -minus Rs.39,600/-) M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 -: 6 :- (iii) Loss of amenities - Rs.25,000/- (instead of Rs.15,000/- awarded) 8. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed. (b) The impugned award is modified and the appellants are awarded the further amount of Rs.26,200/- in addition to the amount already awarded as per the impugned award. 9. The interest, cost etc., shall be payable on the modified amount awarded hereby. R. BASANT (Judge) P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON (Judge) Nan/ M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 -: 7 :-