IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 877 of 2010() ---------------------- OPMV.1376/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- SAHADEVAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.DIVAKARAN, KADAYIL VEEDU, OOTTUKUZHI, KALLUVATHUKKAL. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SANJAYAN, VAYALIL VEETTIL THEKKATHIL, DHAVALAKKUZHI, MAYYANAD. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 877 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 21.01.2006. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of both bones of the right leg. He was an inpatient for a period of 56 days. He suffered permanent disability as the result of the accident. Ext. A9 disability certificate was pressed into service. The author of the certificate was not examined. Inter alia the certificate shows that there was disability in the right leg. The tribunal in the absence of proper proof Ext. A9 disability certificate accepted the same in part and concluded that reduction in earning capacity to the extent 8% alone must have resulted. Against a total claim of Rs.1,50,000/- , tribunal awarded a total sum of 2 MACA No. 877/2010 Rs.54,200/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 8 of the impugned award which we extract below. Sl. No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Loss of earning for 3 months Rs. 6,000/- 2 Partial loss of earning Nil 3 Transport to the hospital Rs.500/- 4 Extra nourishment Rs. 1,000/- 5 Damage to clothing and articles Rs. 500/- 6 Others - Bystander expenses Rs. 500/- 7 Medical expenses Rs. 10,700/- 8 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/- 9 Compensation for continuing for permanent disability (Rs. 2000 x 12 x 13 x 8/100) Rs. 24,960/- 10 Compensation for the loss of amenities in life Nil Total Rs. 54,160/- rounded as Rs. 54,200/- (Rupees fifty four thousand and two hundred only) 2. The insurance company was made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant assails the impugned award on the short 3 MACA No. 877/2010 ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 4. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the monthly earnings of the appellant reckoned by the tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per mensem is grossly and painfully low. The appellant in the petition had claimed that his monthly income at the time of the accident as driver was only Rs. 2,500/-. Even a non earning home maker and un skilled manual worker can safely be assumed to draw to earn income of Rs. 3,000/- per mensem as per dictum in Lata Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 2001 SC 3218] and Laxmi Devi & ors. Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr [2008 ACJ 1488]. We find it easy in these circumstances to accept the assertion of appellant that he was earning an income of Rs. 2,500/- at the time of the accident. 5. While computing the quantum of compensation for reduction in earning capacity the tribunal has to take 4 MACA No. 877/2010 note of the probable improvement of prospects in employment. We find it absolutely safe to conclude that the monthly earnings can be fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per mensem. ‘13’ has been correctly reckoned as the multiplier by the tribunal as stipulated in the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Though the disability certificate shows disability to the extent of 11%, tribunal accepted 8% as the extent in reduction in earning capacity. We do not think that the said finding of the tribunal deserves interference. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the tribunal accepted that permanent physical disability has resulted and that in turn had led to reduction in earning capacity to the extent of 8% the tribunal erred in not awarding any amount under the head of loss of amenities. We find merit in this contention. 7. Physical disability suffered by the claimant/ appellant is bound to leave behind two fold reflections on his life. It reduces his earning capacity. It also reduces the 5 MACA No. 877/2010 quality of enjoyment of life. Considering the nature of the disability and the age of the appellant we hold that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- can safely be fixed as the quantum of compensation for loss of amenities. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that for pain and sufferings only an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded. The appellant suffered fracture of both bones on the right leg and had undergone treatment as inpatient and out patient for a long time. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs. 12,500/- can safely be fixed as quantum of compensation for pain and sufferings. 9. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs. 31,480/- (Rupees Thirty one thousand four hundred and eighty only) as shown below as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the tribunal. a) Loss of earnings : Rs. 1,500/- (2,500 x 3 = 7,500 minus 6,000) 6 MACA No. 877/2010 b) Compensation for pain and sufferings: Rs. 2,500/- (12500 minus 10000) c) Reduction in earning capacity : Rs. 12,480/- (3000 x 12 x 13 x 8/100= 37440 minus 24960) d) Loss of amenities : Rs.15, 000/- (no amount awarded by the tribunal) ------------------ Total Rs. 31,480/- ======== 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is entitled to proportionate cost in the proceedings before the tribunal. No cost has been awarded. We agree that proportionate cost as held in Jeena Vs. Satheesh Babu K. [2011 (3) KLT 943] has to be awarded. 11. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs. 31,480/- (Rupees Thirty one 7 MACA No. 877/2010 thousand four hundred and eighty only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal; d) We direct that proportionate costs in the proceedings before the tribunal be paid to the claimant on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena (supra) e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R. BASANT JUDGE V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE dnc