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 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 365 of 2006() -------------------------------- OPMV.1599/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- K.S. KARUNAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN KOCHU KOCHU, KILIRITHAZHATHU HOUSE, THOTTUMUKKOM POST, VIA AREEKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. M.V. FAISAL, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. KAMMU, MALEVILAKKATT PARAMBA HOUSE, POST KOODARANHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., JAIL ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.365 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT R. BASANT,J. Claimant is the appellant. He, an autorickshaw driver suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 28.04.1997. He was aged 27 years on the date of the accident. He was an impatient for 7 days. He had suffered fracture of the right clavicle. There was mal-union of bones and he suffered 8% disability as per the certificate issued by the medical board to which the Tribunal had referred the appellant. Against the total claim of Rs.1,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.52,000/- as per the details given below: Sl.No. Head Amount awarded 1 Loss of earnings (1500X4) Rs.6,000/- 2 Transport to hospital Rs.1,500/- 3 Extra nourishment 4 Damage to clothing and articles Rs.250/- 5 Medicine and expenses of helpers Rs.2,000/- 6 Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- M.A.C.A. No.365 of 2006 2 Sl.No. Head Amount awarded 7 Continuing or permanent disability Nil 8 Loss of earning power (1500X12X18X18/100) Rs.25920/- 9 Further treatment Rs.1,000/- 10 Loss of amenities Rs.5,000/- Total Rs. 51,670/- ---------------------- Rounded to Rs.52,000/- ======== 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on various grounds. First of all, it is contended that the Tribunal erred in reckoning only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income of the appellant. It was asserted that his monthly income was Rs.3,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that as per clause 6 of the second schedule even for a non earning person as early as in 1994, a presumption is introduced that he can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.1,250/-. Learnd counsel also relies on the decision in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar and others [AIR (2001) SC 3218], where the supreme Court has held that even a non-earning home maker/housewife M.A.C.A. No.365 of 2006 3 can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. The learned counsel for the appellant further points out that going by the minimum wages prescribed under the M otor Transport Workers Fair Wages Act, the appellant at the relevant time would be entitled for an income for about Rs.3,000/- per mensem. We are satisfied in these circumstances, that the assertion of the appellant that the income at the relevant time was Rs.3,000/- per mensem can be accepted. This would apply both for the computation of actual loss of earnings for a period of four months as also for permanent reduction in earning capacity. 3. The learned counsel for the Insurance company alertly points out that after the dictum in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[(2009) 6 SCC 1211] the multiplier applicable is 17 and not 18 is to persons like the appellant ie those belonging to the age group of 25 to 30 years. We agree with the learned counsel. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further submits that under the head of loss of amenities only an amount of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. This is too inadequate considering the fact that 8% disability has been suffered by the M.A.C.A. No.365 of 2006 4 appellant, a young man aged only about 27 years at the time of the accident. We agree with the learned counsel that the amount awarded under the head of loss of amenities deserves to be enhanced. 5. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for the following further amounts, in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 1. Loss of income : Rs.6,000/- (3000X4=12,000-6000) 2. Compensation for reduction in earning capacity (3000X12X17X8/100= 48960-25920) : Rs.23,040/- 3. Loss of amenities : Rs.10,000/- (15,000-5000) -------------------------- Total Rs.39,040/- ------------------------ ------------------------ 6. Interest has been awarded only at the rate of 6% per annum. The interest awarded is too low contends the learned counsel for the appellant. We agree and direct that interest to be paid at 7.5% per annum. No other contentions are raised by either side. M.A.C.A. No.365 of 2006 5 7. In the result: 1. This appeal is allowed in part. 2. The appellant is found entitled to a total further amount of Rs.39,040/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand and forty only) as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 3. We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition to the date of payment/realisation. d. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE ln