IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1494 of 2008(B) ----------------------- O.P(M.V) 565/2006 OF M.A.C.T, TIRUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- GOPALAN, S/O RAMAN, MUNDILATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUTHI, P.O.THIRUNAVAYA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SHAMEJ, S/O PARANGODAN, KALINGAL HOUSE, P.O.PERASSANNUR, KUTTIPPURAM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.(DELETED) 2. MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O MOIDEEN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAKKAD, P.O.TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., THAZHEPPALAM, P.O.TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (R1is deleted from the party array as per order dated 12.10.2011 in I.A.No.2597/11) ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1494 of 2008-B ***************************** Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 30.04.2006. As against the total claim of Rs.5 lakhs, the Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation as per the details given in para.14 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl.No. Heads of claim Amount awarded 1 Transport to hospital Rs. 6,000.00 2 Damage to clothing Rs. 300.00 3 Expenses of bystander Rs. 2,500.00 4 Medical bills Rs. 46,700.00 5 Extra nourishment Rs. 2,500.00 6 Loss of income Rs. 12,000.00 7 Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000.00 8 Permanent disability Rs. 75,000.00 (global) Total Rs.1,60,000/- The insurance company was made entirely liable under the impugned award. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant M.A.C.A No.1494 of 2008-B 2 and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The challenge is raised only on the ground of inadequacy of quantum of compensation. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the Tribunal erred grossly in reckoning his monthly income as Rs.3,000/- only. It is contended that the documents produced clearly show that the appellant was running a workshop duly licenced by the Kalpakanchery grama panchayat (see Exts.A12 to A14). The learned counsel also relies on Ext.A11 certificate to show that the appellant was a holder of Diploma in Rural Services. The appellant was aged between 50 and 55 years as found by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the monthly income would safely have been reckoned at Rs.3,500/-. In coming to this conclusion, we take note of the presumption of prudence available from 1994 in clause 6 of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. We also take note of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa V. State of Bihar [AIR 2001 SC 3218] and Laxmi Devi & Ors. V. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr. [2008 ACJ 1488]. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends M.A.C.A No.1494 of 2008-B 3 that though the Medical Board had assessed the disability to be 30%, the Tribunal did not resort to the multiplier-multiplicand method to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable for reduction in earning capacity. Only a global amount of Rs.75,000/- was awarded. This is grossly inadequate, contends the learned counsel. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the quantum of compensation payable for reduction in earning capacity must have been ascertained by resort to the multiplier-multiplicand method. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no further amount has been awarded specifically under the head of loss of amenities. The appellant is shown to be a person of the age group 50-55 years. 30% disability has resulted. The disability as assessed by the Medical Board revealed from Ext.A17 includes right sided hemiparesis. He had suffered fracture of the left clavicle, which was malunited. 6. Physical disability suffered by a person has two pronged reflections on his life. It reduces his earning capacity. It also reduces the quality of enjoyment which he can aspire hereafter. The appellant will have to live with this disability for the rest of his life and we are satisfied that an amount of M.A.C.A No.1494 of 2008-B 4 Rs.20,000/- ought to have been awarded separately under the head of loss of amenities. 7. We are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded under any other head deserves or warrants interference. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.85,600/- as shown below in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) Loss of income : Rs.2,000.00 (3,500 X 4=14,000 minus Rs.12,000/-) ii) Reduction in earning capacity : Rs.63,600.00 (3500 X 12 X 11 X 30/100 =1,38,600 minus 75,000) iii) Loss of amenities : Rs.20,000.00 (no amount separately awarded by the Tribunal) ------------------- Total : Rs.85,600.00 ======== 09. In the result: a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.85,600/- (Rupees Eighty five thousand six hundred only) in M.A.C.A No.1494 of 2008-B 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) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/