IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 126 of 2008 ---------------------- OP(MV.)540/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- RAMANAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KUDILINGAL HOUSE, KUNJAYINI P.O., EDAVILANGU, VIA. KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. K.S.R.T.C., REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAJANKUTTY, S/O. VASU, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR VIJAYA CLUB, KURICHI, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.434, ST.JOSEPH'S BUILDING, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P. JAYASANKAR . THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ................................................................................ M.A.C.A. No. 126 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th November, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J: The appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.540 of 2002, seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident on 17.09.2001 . 2. The claimant was travelling as a passenger in a K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.KL-15/4412. While so, allegedly because of the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent/driver, the bus hit against an electric post, causing 'crush injury' to the right hand, which led to the claim petition. The K.S.R.T.C., as well as the driver of the bus were shown as respondent Nos.1 and 2, who did not choose to contest the case and the claim was resisted only by the third respondent/Insurer. M.A.C.A. No. 126 OF 2008 2 3. The claimant adduced evidence by examining himself as P.W.1 and also producing Exts. A1 to A18 as documentary evidence, whereas no evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced from the part of the insurer. After analysing the materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident was only because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, which appears to be very mcuch correct and proper. 4. With regard to fixation of quantum, the case put forth by the claimant was that he was a 'second hand car' dealer, earning nearly Rs.8,000/- per month. In support of the said claim, some documents were produced by him, such as Ext. A8- copy of his registration as an 'auto consultant', Ext.A14 Mobile bills etc. However, considering the fact that no satisfactory evidence was adduced to substantiate the avocation or the monthly income of the claimant, the Tribunal chose to fix Rs.2000/- as the notional monthly income for working out compensation towards the 'loss of earning'. But, while computing the figures in respect of compensation for 'permanent disability', M.A.C.A. No. 126 OF 2008 3 the Tribunal reduced the monthly income still to Rs.1500/- and adopting the multiplier of '13' (based on the age of the claimant as '49' years), a sum of Rs.1,62,800/- was awarded as compensation in respect of the 'permanent disability' of 70%. The Tribunal awarded some amounts under other permissible heads as well, making the total compensation as Rs.3,00,600/-, which was directed to be satisfied by the insurer, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 5. The claimant is before this Court seeking for enhancement of compensation, stating that the course pursued by the Tribunal is not at all correct or proper, particularly with regard to fixation of monthly income and also as to the extent of disability. The learned Counsel for the third respondent submits that Ext.A7 disability certificate only certifies the permanent disability as 65%; whereas the Tribunal has reckoned the permanent disability as 70% for working out the compensation under this head. It is contended that the Tribunal is perfectly within the four walls of the law, in fixing the amounts as awarded, particularly in view of the nature of the injuries M.A.C.A. No. 126 OF 2008 4 sustained and permanent disability caused will in no way affect the alleged avocation of the appellant in any adverse manner. 6. It is true that Ext. A7 disability certificate certifies the permanent disability as 65%. The Tribunal has reckoned 'loss of earning capacity' as 70% with due regard to the relevant factors as specified in the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Schedule thereunder. The reason for not reckoning 90% as total loss of earning capacity has also been analysed and discussed in paragraph No.'7'. The finding and reasoning given by the Tribunal appear to be very much satisfactory and it does not call for any interference. 7. However, coming to the fixation of the multiplicand for working out the compensation for 'permanent disability', we find it very difficult to subscribe to the view taken by the Tribunal, reducing the monthly income from Rs.2000/- to Rs. 1500/-, despite the fact that Rs.2000/- was already accepted by the Tribunal as the monthly income reckonable, while fixing the compensation towards 'loss of earning' and granting Rs.10000/- in respect of loss of income for five months. We find that the M.A.C.A. No. 126 OF 2008 5 compensation for permanent disability is also to be worked out, adopting the very same figures and as such, the appellant is entitled for a further sum of Rs.55,600/- (Rupees fifty five thousand and six hundred only) under this head (2000 x 12 x 70/100 x 13 = 218400 minus 162800/- already awarded by the Tribunal). 8. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that despite the serious nature of the injuries, resulting in a loss of earning capacity of 70%, as accepted by the Tribunal, no amount has been awarded towards 'loss of amenities and enjoyment in life'. We find considerable force in the said submission and we find it fit and proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) under this head as well. The Tribunal has awarded interest only at the rate of 6% per annum, which actually ought to have been at 7% per annum. 9. In the result, we hereby enhance compensation providing a further sum of Rs. 70,600/- (Rupees seventy thousand and six hundred only) as the balance compensation payable in respect of the injuries sustained by the appellant. The M.A.C.A. No. 126 OF 2008 6 said amount, as well as the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The due amount shall be deposited by the third respondent/Insurer as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The appeal is allowed in part. No cost. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk