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 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 1108 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.702/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------- KOMALAM, D/O. BHAGAVATHI AMMA, TRIVENI, MANGALATHUKONAM, VENGANOOR, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. T. SURESH KUMAR, KARIYARA VILAKOM VEEDU, PUTHENKONAM, KATTACHALKUZHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ROHINI BUILDING, THAKARAPARAMBU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1108 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. Claimant is the appellant. She is a 50 year old house wife. She suffered injuries in a motor accident. The accident occurred on 16.2.2001. She was admitted and discharged on that date. Later, she was admitted on 20.3.2001 and was discharged on 30.3.2001. Open reduction and internal fixation with plate and screws was done under general anesthesia. She had to appear for physiotherapy. 22Cm long surgical scar on the anterior aspect of right arm was left behind. The fracture of the right humerus has united with implants in situ. She had suffered permanent disability. Exhibit A12 gives the details of the disability. The Medical Officer at the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram assessed the disability to be 12%. The Tribunal did not accept the same in full. The said Doctor was not examined. However, the Tribunal accepted that a disability of 9% has resulted. But while calculating the quantum, only 8% was taken into reckoning without any reason. The Tribunal, in all, awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- as compensation as per M.A.C.A.1108/06 -2- the details shown below: 1. Loss of earnings – Nil 2. Medical and miscellaneous expenses - Rs.10,000/- 3. Transport and extra nourishment - Rs. 2,000/- 4. Bystander's expenses - Rs. 4,500/- 5. Damage to clothing - Rs.250/- 6. Pain and suffering - Rs.15,000/- 7.Compensation for physical disability (Rs.2,000 x12x11x8/100) - Rs.21,120/- 8. Loss of amenities(Impairment in the quality of life) - Rs.7,000/- ---------------------- Total Rs.59,870 ======== Rounded off to Rs.60,000/- 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is her grievance? The learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the Tribunal unrealistically and unfairly reckoned that the physical disability has not resulted in any loss of earnings for any period. Though notional income was reckoned at Rs.2,000/- for the purpose of ascertaining the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal surprisingly did not award any amount as compensation for loss M.A.C.A.1108/06 -3- of earnings/services. Considering the nature of the injury, the period of hospitilisatoin, the nature of the procedures undergone, etc. it must at any rate have been assumed that the claimant/appellant would have been rendered incapable of rendering any domestic service for some period, contends the learned counsel. We readily accept that contention of the learned counsel. We are satisfied that the appellant must have been deprived of her opportunity to render domestic services at least for a period of four months. For such loss of services, she is entitled to be compensated. It would be unrealistic and chauvinistic to assume that such services rendered by a woman on the domestic front has no monetary equivalent whatsoever. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the Tribunal erred in not accepting Exhibit A12 medical certificate. We have gone through the nature of disability suffered. We are unable to agree that the Tribunal committed any such error warranting appellate interference in assuming that 9% can be reckoned as the relevant reduction in earning capacity while computing compensation by the multiplier- multiplicand method. Though in Exhibit A12 disability certificate M.A.C.A.1108/06 -4- the Doctor who has issued the same has certified a disability of 12%, going by the intrinsic materials available and Exhibit A12 disability certificate, we find the Tribunal's estimation that 9% can be reckoned as the relevant factor while computing the quantum of compensation payable for disability on the ground of reduction in competence to render services can be accepted. 4. The learned counsel argues that the quantification of the value of the services rendered by the wife at home at Rs.2,000/- is totally unreasonable. The learned counsel relies on the circumstance that even in 1994 when the Second Schedule was introduced, Rs.1,250/- was assumed to be the notional income of an unearning person. Elapse of seven years and the consequent reduction in the purchasing par of the rupee should have been taken into account by the Tribunal. We are persuaded to agree that Rs.2,500/- can be reckoned as the monetary equivalent of the services rendered by the appellant. 5. The Tribunal after holding that 9% can be reckoned as the reduction erroneously took into account only 8% while ascertaining the product. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that 9% as found by the Tribunal earlier must itself M.A.C.A.1108/06 -5- have been reckoned as the relevant figure to arrive at the product. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant finally contends that the award of only an amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for loss of impairment in the quality of life is grossly insufficient. The appellant was aged about 50 years and she will have to endure the physical disability for the rest of her life. All the difficulties reckoned in Exhibit A12 are disabilities which would interfere with day to day life and work of the appellant, points out the learned counsel for the appellant. No separate amounts have been awarded under the head of disfiguration, though a 22cm long surgical scar on the anterior aspect of right arm is not recorded in Exhibit A12. We are satisfied that the amount awarded under the head of loss of amenities also deserves to be enhanced to accommodate the above circumstances. 7. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the following further amounts by way of compensation in addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A.1108/06 -6- (1) Loss of earnings-Rs.2500x4 = Rs.10,000/- (2) Compensation for disability Rs.2,500x12x11x9/100=Rs.29,700 minus Rs. 21,120 = Rs. 8,580/- (3) Loss of amenities – Rs.10,000/-minus Rs.7,000/- = Rs. 3,000/- ----------------- Total = Rs. 21,580/- ======== 8. The learned counsel for the respondent -insurance company contends that at any rate the total amount awarded by the Tribunal , i.e., Rs.60,000/- is more than reasonable and no further amounts are liable to be paid. The learned counsel also contends that interest awarded at 9% per annum is also excessive. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent/insurer. We are satisfied that the rate of interest awarded does not also warrant interference in the circumstances of the case. No other contentions are raised. 9. In the result: (a) this appeal is allowed in part. (b) the appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.21,580/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty only) in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A.1108/06 -7- (c) Needless to say that the entire amount shall carry interest from the date of the petition to the date of payment at the rates directed by the Tribunal. 10. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn