IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 953 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.1353/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- ANILKUMAR @ ANI, S/O. SANKARA DAS, VATTATHARAYIL HOUSE, PADINJATTU CHERI, THECKEMURIYIL, VAIKOM VILLAGE, VAIKOM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SATHEESAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, KOCHU NIKARTHIL, VADAKKUMURI KARA, CHERTHALA VILLAGE. 3. THE KERALA STATE INSURANCE CORPORTION DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.953 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT R.BASANT, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He had claimed an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident. The accident took place on 09.02.06. The appellant claimed that he was a Junior Executive in Rashtradeepika drawing a monthly income of Rs.2,500/- per mensem. He was an inpatient for a period of 13 days. He had allegedly suffered disability also as a result of the accident. 2. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials before it, came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for only an amount of Rs.53,000/- as compensation. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned judgment. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant specifically challenges the amounts awarded under two specific M.A.C.A.No.953 of 2005 2 heads. The learned counsel contends that for the loss of earning suffered by him, only an amount of Rs.8,500/- has been awarded reckoning that he had lost his earning for 5 months. Monthly earning was reckoned only at Rs1,700/-. The counsel contends that the salary certificate Ext.A8 produced by him clearly shows that he was getting an income of Rs.2,500/- per mensem through his employer. 3. The counsel further contends that the Tribunal erred grossly in not granting any amount as compensation for reduction in earning capacity consequent to the disability suffered. The Tribunal had awarded only an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of amenities after taking note of Ext.A9 disability certificate which showed that the appellant had suffered disability to the extent of 26%. 4. When the matter came up before this Court, it was directed that the alleged disability of the appellant be assessed by the medical board. Accordingly we have now received the disability certificate which shows that the appellant had suffered the permanent partial disability to the tune of 16%. The same can be accepted and there is no dispute on that aspect. M.A.C.A.No.953 of 2005 3 5. It had also been revealed from Ext.A9 certificate that in 2003 when the appellant was examined by the doctor, he was not continuing his employment with M/s.Rashtradeepika and he had secured employment in the Government service as U.D.C. The Tribunal thought that this was deliberate suppression of information from the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant accepts that the appellant had subsequently secured employment in Government service and he is now working as U.D.C. But the counsel is unable to precisely apprise this Court of the date on which he ceased to be an employee of Rashtradeepika and secured the employment in Government service. 6. The learned counsel submits that in any view of the matter in Government service it can safely be assumed that the monthly earning of the appellant is more than Rs.2,500/-. Merely because the appellant had secured employment in Government service, it cannot be assumed that no compensation is payable for reduction in earning capacity. It is now established beyond doubt that the appellant had suffered physical disability of 16%. Even assuming that there is no reduction in the pay packet, the Tribunal should not have lost sight of the fact that with the M.A.C.A.No.953 of 2005 4 disability suffered by him he would be compelled to put in extra effort to do the same work which he without disability would have been able to perform. That dimension of the disability must at any rate have been taken into account even assuming that the appellant was a U.D.C in the Government service on the date of the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that from Government service the appellant will be obliged to retire on superannuation at the age of 55 years and this substantial disability suffered by him would certainly affect his prospects of reemployment after superannuation from his service. At least a reasonable multiplier must have been taken even assuming that till the age of 55 years the appellant may not suffer any actual reduction in his earnings. 7. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. We note that Rs.2,500/- is certified to be the average earning of commission of the appellant. We are of the opinion that it would be absolutely safe to reckon the multiplicand at Rs.2,000/- and the multiplier at 8 in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the loss of amenities, the appellant has been adequately compensated by the award of the amount of Rs.25,000/- by the Tribunal. We are, in these M.A.C.A.No.953 of 2005 5 circumstances, satisfied that the further amounts can be awarded under the heads of loss of earnings and reduction in earning capacity consequent to physical disability suffered at the accident. For 5 months' loss of earnings, the appellant will be entitled for a further amount of Rs.1,500/- and for the reduction in earning capacity consequent to disability, the appellant will be entitled to an amount of Rs.30,720/- [ie. Rs.2,000 X 12 X 8 X 16/100]. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.32,220/- [30,720 + 1,500] (Rupees Thirty two thousand two hundred and twenty only) as per the details shown above. The appellant will also be entitled for interest as already directed by the Tribunal, for the entire amount, from the date of the petition. 9. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) rtr/-