IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 2444 of 2009(G) ----------------------- OPMV.1502/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT : 2ND PETITIONER ---------------------------- ATHIRA, D/O.RUGMINI, AGED 22 YEARS ATHIRA BHAVAN, CHEMMAKKADU PO, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS SMT.M.MEENA JOHN RESPONDENTS/1ST PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- 1. SIVADASAN, S/O.NEELAKANTAN, PILLAMATTU, PRAKKULAM, KANJAVELI, PO, KOLLAM(DRIVER) 2. SYAMKUMAR, S/O.SOMAN, SYAMBHAVAN, CHONAMCHIRA, PERINADU PO, KOLLAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 4. RUGMINI, ATHIRA BHAVAN, CHEMMAKKADU PO, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR FOR R1 SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD FOR R1 SRI.R.NIKHIL FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.2444 of 2009-G ***************************** Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. She was a minor girl, aged 16 years at the time of the accident which took place on 18.09.2003. She suffered crush injuries to the left foot when the insured vehicle ran over her foot. She was an inpatient from 18.09.2003 to 13.10.2003. Surgery was conducted on 08.10.2003. She had suffered permanent disability which was assessed at 10%. The same was accepted by the Tribunal. She could not attend the school for a period of 5 months. Her mother had to attend on her for two months and could not therefore go for her employment. The Tribunal, against a claim of Rs.2 lakhs, awarded a total amount of Rs.68,000/- as per the details given in para.8 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl.No. Heads of award Amount awarded 1 Transport to hospital Rs. 1,000.00 2 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000.00 3 Damage to clothing and articles Rs. 500.00 M.A.C.A No.2444 of 2009-G 2 Sl.No. Heads of award Amount awarded 4 Others – Bystander expenses Rs. 2,500.00 5 Medical expenses Rs. 3,939.00 6 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.15,000.00 7 Compensation for continuing for permanent disability (15000X16X10/100) Rs.24,000.00 8 Compensation for loss of amenities of life Rs.15,000.00 9 Compensation for disfiguration Rs. 5,000.00 Total Rs.67,939.00 2. The learned counsel for the claimant, owner and insurer have advanced their arguments. The impugned award is challenged on the sole ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is insufficient. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the Tribunal erred grossly in not awarding any amount as compensation for retardation in the educational progress of the child. She was unable to attend the school for a period of 5 months. No compensation has been awarded under this head at all. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that adequate compensation ought to be awarded for enforced involuntary inability to pursue her educational career for a period of 5 months. M.A.C.A No.2444 of 2009-G 3 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the expenses for bystanders and extra nourishment awarded by the Tribunal is too low and inadequate. Only a total amount of Rs.3,500/- (2,500 plus 1,000) has been awarded under this head. We have evidence to show that the mother of the claimant could not attend to her work for a period of 2 months because she had to act as the bystander of the injured. The injured had to continue treatment for a period of 5 months and was absent from the school. We are satisfied that an appropriately higher amount of compensation deserves to be awarded under the heads of bystander's expenses and extra nourishment. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amount of compensation awarded for pain and suffering (Rs.15,000/-) is too low. She was an inpatient for a period of about one month. Serious injuries have been suffered. Disability has resulted. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded as compensation under this head to the minor claimant, aged about 16 years. 6. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded for reduction in earning capacity (called permanent disability) by employing multiplier-multiplicand method, the learned counsel M.A.C.A No.2444 of 2009-G 4 for the appellant submits that, at any rate, the multiplier reckoned by the Tribunal is not correct. Following the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], it is pointed out that 18 should have been reckoned as the multiplier. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that 18 can be accepted as the multiplier. The injured was not an earning person and the Tribunal had hence drawn the presumption of prudence under clause 6 of the Second Schedule to the M.V Act to come to the conclusion that the annual income can be reckoned at Rs.15,000/-. 7. Finally the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the compensation awarded under the head of loss of amenities of life and disfiguration (15,000 plus 5,000) is too inadequate. The Tribunal had not realistically taken note of the fact that the injured is a young girl aged about 16 years. This would affect her marriage prospects. The trauma would necessarily lead to shortened expectation of life. The quality of enjoyment of life of the young claimant would be certainly impaired by the 10% physical disability suffered by her. In these circumstances, the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded under the composite head of loss of amenities and disfiguration deserves to M.A.C.A No.2444 of 2009-G 5 be modified, contends the learned counsel. We agree. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.47,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal as per the details given below: i) Compensation for retardation in educational progress for a period of 5 months : Rs.15,000.00 (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) ii) Extra nourishment and bystander's expenses : Rs. 4,000.00 (7500 minus 3500) iii) Compensation for pain and suffering : Rs. 5,000.00 (20000 minus 15000) iv) Compensation for reduction in earning capacity : Rs.3,000.00 [1250 X 12 X 18 X 10/100 = 27,000) minus 24,000] v) Compensation for loss of amenities of life : Rs.10,000.00 (25000 minus 15000) vi) Compensation for disfiguration : Rs.10,000.00 (15000 minus 5000) ------------------- Total : Rs.47,000.00 ======== M.A.C.A No.2444 of 2009-G 6 9. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves modification/enhancement. 10. In the result: i) This appeal is allowed in part; ii) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.47,000/- (Rupees Forty seven thousand only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal; iii) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the Tribunal under the impugned award; iv) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/