IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1326 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1483/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------ T.NIDHISHRAJ, AGED 26 YEARS, SON OF RAJAN, KAINARAMKANDY HOUSE, P.O.EDAKKADU, KOZHIKODE-673005. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. SHYMESH T.V., SON OF T.V.PADMANABHAN, 8/1556, SREEKRISHNA, P.O.EDAKKADU, KOZHIKODE-673005. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, TRIPURI BUIDLING, EAST NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE-673011. ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA FOR R2 SRI.ZIAD REHMAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1326 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 15/4/2007. He had suffered blunt injury to the abdomen. Splenectomy had to be performed. There was fracture of the 5th left rib. He was an in-patient for a period of 12 days. He had suffered permanent disability. Medical Board assessed disability to be 10% under Ext.C1. The tribunal accepted the same. Against a total claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, the tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.55,857/- as per the details given in paragraph 10 of the impugned award which we extract below: Sl.No Head of claim Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount awarded (Rs.) Details 1 Transport to hospital 1000 250 -- 2 Extra nourishment 3000 300 -- 3 Loss of earnings 12000 3750 2500x 1 ½ months 4 Bystander expenses Nil 1200 12x100 5 Treatment expenses 50000 38357 40907-2550 M.A.C.A.No.1326 of 2011 2 Sl.No Head of claim Amount claimed (Rs.) Amount awarded (Rs.) Details 6 Pain and sufferings 100000 10000 -- 7 Loss of amenities 100000 2000 --- 8 Total 55857 7% interest from 7.7.07 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the monthly income of the appellant was reckoned by the tribunal only at Rs.2,500/-. The accident took place in 2007 and the appellant was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. Even though the appellant claimed to be driver of the autorickshaw nothing is produced to show his qualification as a driver. The tribunal accepted only Rs.2,500/- to be the monthly earnings. In the total absence of any better evidence, we are satisfied that the tribunal should have reckoned Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant, a person aged 26 years in 2007. He was an in-patient M.A.C.A.No.1326 of 2011 3 for a period of 12 days. We are satisfied that it would be absolutely reasonable to assume that he must have been involuntarily unemployed for three months. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the tribunal accepted Ext.C1 and the contents thereof that the appellant had suffered physical disability to the tune of 10%, the tribunal did not proceed to consider the compensation payable for reduction in earning capacity employing the multiplier-multiplicand method. The appellant was aged between 25 and 30 years and as per the second schedule to the M.V.Act 18 ought to be adopted as the multiplier. Physical disability of 10% can, in the circumstances of the case, be held to result in reduction in earning capacity to identical extent. The learned counsel for the appellant points out and we accept that it was an omission on the part of the tribunal to compute the compensation payable under the head of reduction in earning capacity. 5. The 26 year old appellant had suffered Splenectomy. For loss of amenities only an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded. The learned counsel contends that the amount is not M.A.C.A.No.1326 of 2011 4 reasonable. We agree with this contention. We are satisfied that a higher amount of compensation deserves to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities. 6. We are not persuaded to agree that the amount awarded under any other head deserves or warrants interference. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.83,050/- as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. i) Loss of earnings Rs.5,250/- (Rs.3,000/- x 3 minus Rs.3,750/-) ii) Reduction in earning capacity Rs.64,800/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 18 x 10/100) iii) Loss of amenities Rs.13,000/- (Rs.15,000/- minus Rs.2,000/-) ---------------- Total Rs.83,050 ====== 7. We further clarify that proportionate cost for the total amount awarded for proceedings before the tribunal shall be calculated as per the decision in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943]. M.A.C.A.No.1326 of 2011 5 8. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) Appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.83,050/- (Rupees eighty three thousand and fifty only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the tribunal. d) Proportionate cost before the tribunal shall be paid as per the decision in Jeena (Supra). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1326 of 2011 6 M.A.C.A.No.1326 of 2011 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010