IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 2012 of 2005() ------------------------------------- OP(MV) NO.501/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,MANJERI. APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: --------------------------------------- P.T.VIJAYAN, S/O.THE LATE SANKARAN NAIR, PATTIKKATTUTHAZHATHETHIL, AMARAMBALAM SOUTH.P.O, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.P.PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. K.KUNJAYAMMU, S/O.KOYA, KALLUVETTI HOUSE, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DIST. (DRIVER). 2. P.RASHEED, S/O.KOMU HAJEE, PARAMMAL HOUSE, VATTALLOOR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KORAMBAYIL ARCADE, MANJERI. R3 BY ADV. MR.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.2012 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered in an accident which occurred on 17/11/1999. He claimed an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs. He was aged 40 years at the time of the accident. He claimed to be a business man doing business in grocery items. His income was claimed to be Rs.250/- per day. He had suffered head injury, compound comminuted fracture of shaft of femur on the right side and right tibia including fracture of scapula and also other multiple external injuries. He was an in-patient for a period of 24 days. He had suffered permanent physical disability. It was got assessed at 5%. 2. Before the tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW1. Exts.A1 to A10 and Ext.X1 report of the medical board were marked. The tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,10,071/- as per the details shown below: M.A.C.A.No.2012/05 2 Transport to Hospital Rs.750/- Extra nourishment and Rs.3,300/- bystanders expenses Medical expenses Rs.70,021/- Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- Disability Rs.16,000/- (20,000 x 5 x 16/100) Future medical expenses Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.1,10,071.00 Interest was directed to be paid @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. Cost was also awarded. 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the appellant explains that the challenge is on four specific grounds. First of all, it is contended that the tribunal went grossly wrong in reckoning the annual income as Rs.20,000/- only. This would work out to a monthly income of Rs.1,667/-. Ext.A9 series profession tax receipt indicates that the appellant was a grocery merchant, points out the counsel. Even for a non-earning person, the law from 1994 in 2nd schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act permits the presumption of prudence that atleast an amount M.A.C.A.No.2012/05 3 of Rs.1,250/- can be assumed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, even though better evidence has not been made available before the tribunal and it is only the claimant who can be left to suffer for want of adequate data on that aspect, we are satisfied that the petitioner's income can safely be reckoned at Rs.2,000/- per mensum. 4. The learned counsel contends that no amounts have been awarded under the heads of loss of earnings and loss of amenities. The appellant was an in-patient for a period of 24 days. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered and treatment undergone, there must have been involuntary unemployment at least for a period of thee months, contends the counsel. We accept it. For loss of amenities, no amounts have been paid. The appellant is a person aged about 40 years and for the rest of his life, he will have to endure disability of 5% certified by the medical board in Ext.X1. We are satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that this purely an inadvertent omission deserves to be corrected. We are satisfied that award of an amount of Rs.8,000/- shall serve the ends of justice satisfactorily. M.A.C.A.No.2012/05 4 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that reasonable amounts have not been awarded under the head pain and suffering. He was an in-patient for a period of 24 days. Multiple fractures have been suffered by him. As indicated earlier, he had to undergo three operations. For removal of the implant, one more operation was contemplated. Only an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded. We are satisfied that a total amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded under the head. 6. Finally, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that interest has been awarded @ 6% per annum only. Relying on precedents, it is contended that interest must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant shall be entitled for a further amount of Rs.22,200/- (Rupees twenty two thousand and two hundred only) as per the details shown below in addition to the amounts already directed to be paid under the impugned award. 1. Loss of amenities Rs.8,000/- more (No amounts awarded) 2. Loss of earnings Rs.6,000/- (No amounts awarded) M.A.C.A.No.2012/05 5 (Rs.2,000/- x 3 ) 3. Compensation for reduction Rs.3,200/- in earning capacity [(Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 5 x 16/100) minus Rs.16,000/-] 4. Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- more Total Rs.22,200/- 8. We further direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till payment. 9. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.2012/05 6 M.A.C.A.No.2012/05 7 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009