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. 1488 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.135/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- AKBAR, S/O.MOIDEEN, PUTHANANGADI HOUSE, NEAR IVGM HOSPITAL, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOSE LUVIS, PALAMATTOM HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD.P.O., CHALAKUDY. 2. BABU, S/O.LOUIS, PALAMATTOM HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD, PARIYRARAM. 3. THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE, CO. LTD., IRINJALAKUDA. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 SRI.T.K.SAJEEV FOR R1 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. ------------------------------------------------- MACA No.1488 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant. He claimed an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for personal injury suffered in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs.64,209/-. The claimant laments that the quantum of compensation fixed is unrealistic and too meager. 2. Multiple fractures were suffered by the claimant. He underwent treatment as an inpatient for 14 days. Physical disability was assessed and reported under Ext.A12 disability certificate to be 12%. The Tribunal reckoned the reduction in earning capacity to be only 7%. The appellant particularly assails the quantum of compensation awarded under three heads. First of all, it is contended that the monthly income MACA No.1488 of 2006 -: 2 :- was reckoned unrealistically at Rs.1,500/- per mensem. Even for an unemployed person, law permits an assumption that he must have been drawing an income of Rs.1,250/- per mensem. That presumption was enacted in 1994 and the injury was suffered in 1999. Secondly, the learned counsel contends that the percentage of disability reported by the Doctor in the disability certificate to be 12% was unjustifiably reduced to 7%. There was no justification for this reduction, it is contended. Thirdly and finally it is contended that even assuming the disability to be only 7%, the compensation awarded for loss of amenities of life at Rs.3,000/- for the appellant - a person aged about 30 years is totally inadequate. 3. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that at least Rs.2,000/- must have been reckoned as monthly income of the claimant. Even reckoning him as a just able bodied person who has a family depending on him, that assumption would be absolutely reasonable, it is contended and we agree. That the percentage of disability was assessed at 12% by the Doctor. Considering the nature of the alleged employment/ MACA No.1488 of 2006 -: 3 :- activity of the claimant, we are of opinion that the Tribunal committed no error warranting interference in reckoning 7% alone as the reduction in earning capacity flowing from the physical disability reported by the Doctor. 4. We are in agreement that the amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded for loss of amenities for the physical disability of 12% suffered is not sufficient. Enhancement can be granted on the above three heads. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant finally contends that the quantum of interest awarded is only at the rate of 6% per annum. At least, 7.5% of interest must have been granted, it is contended. We agree. 5. It follows that the appellant is entitled for the following further amounts by way of compensation (Rs.13,640/- more): (i) Loss of earning Rs.2,000/- x 3 - Rs.6,000/- (Rs.1,500/- more) (ii) Compensation for reduction in earning capacity - Rs.28,560/- (Rs.7,140/- (Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 7/100 x 17 - more) Rs.28,560/- minus Rs.21,420/-) - (iii) Compensation for loss of amenities - Rs,8,000/- (Rs.5000/- more) MACA No.1488 of 2006 -: 4 :- 6. The direction for payment of cost is upheld. Interest shall be payable on the total amount at the rate of 7.5 per annum from the date of the petition. R. BASANT (Judge) P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON (Judge) Nan/ MACA No.1488 of 2006 -: 5 :-