IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1495 of 2011(E) ----------------------- OPMV.948/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER ------------------------ P.A.ABOOBACKER, S/O.UMMER, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAROTTAKATH HOUSE, P.O.KARULVAMCHAL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SATHAR,S/O.ABDULLA, AGE NOT KNOWN, ERSIDING AT AYISHA'S KANAL PALAM, VELIYANNOR P.O., KANNUR, (OWNER OF THE MARUTHI VAN KL-13/J-5538). 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KANNOOR, (INSURER OF THE MARUTHI VAN KL-13/J-5538). ADV. M.A.GEORGE FOR R-2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1495 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 27/11/2003. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of thigh bones. He was treated as an inpatient for a total period of 54 days in three spells. He had allegedly suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10% also. Ext.C1 certificate of permanent disability issued from the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, is seen accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, against a total claim of `3,00,000/-, awarded an amount of `1,51,322/- as compensation as per the details given below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Transport to hospital Rs. 500.00 2 Extra nourishment Rs. 3,000.00 3 English medicines Rs. 50,922.00 4 Damage to clothing Rs. 500.00 5 Bystander's expenses Rs. 5,400.00(54X100) 6 Loss of earnings Rs. 15,000.00(2500X6) M.A.C.A. No.1495 of 2011 -: 2 :- Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 7 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs. 25,000.00 8 Loss of disability Rs. 51,000.00 (2500 x 12 x 17 x 10/100) 9 Loss of amenities Nil 10 Loss of earning power Nil Total Rs.1,51,322/- @ 6% per annum with cost of Rs.1,000/- The insurance company was made entirely liable to satisfy the award. 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant, first of all, contends that the monthly income of the appellant reckoned by the Tribunal at `2,500/- is grossly inadequate. The appellant is a businessman. His monthly income must have been taken at least at `3,500/-, contends counsel. Before the Tribunal no materials whatsoever were available to show that the appellant was a businessman running any business. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal could only have drawn the presumption of prudence. The grievance that at least an amount of `3,000/- must have been reckoned as monthly M.A.C.A. No.1495 of 2011 -: 3 :- income of the appellant appears to be justified, in these circumstances. We take note of the dictum in Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar (2008 ACJ 1488) whereunder the courts have been permitted to draw the presumption of prudence that even an unskilled manual worker must be earning an income of `3,000/- per mensem. Consequently, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity will have to be enhanced. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the Tribunal, even after accepting 10% physical disability as a result of the accident, has not chosen to award any amount under the head of loss of amenities. We find merit in the contention. Physical disability suffered by a person leaves behind two fold reflections on his life. It reduces his earning capacity. It also reduces the quality of enjoyment of life which the victim can aspire thereafter. Certainly the victim is entitled to be compensated for the loss on that score. 3. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of `33,200/- (Rupees thirty three thousand and two hundred only) as compensation as shown below in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award: M.A.C.A. No.1495 of 2011 -: 4 :- i) Loss of earnings : Rs.3,000.00 (3,000X6 =18,000 minus 15,000) ii) Loss of earning capacity : Rs.10,200.00 (3,000X12X17X10/100) =61,200 minus 51,000) iii) Loss of amenities (no amount awarded under the impugned award) : Rs.20,000.00 -------------------- Total : Rs.33,200.00 ======== 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that interest has been awarded only at the rate of 6% per annum. This is grossly inadequate, contends counsel. We agree. We direct that interest be paid at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the entire amount of compensation from the date of the claim to the date of payment. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that proportionate cost on the amount awarded has not been granted by the Tribunal. Only an amount of Rs.1,000/- has been awarded globally as costs. The counsel argues and we agree that proportionate cost before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) M.A.C.A. No.1495 of 2011 -: 5 :- KLT 943] is liable to be awarded. 6. In the result : a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.33,200/- (Rupees Thirty three thousand and two hundred only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. c) We direct that interest be paid on the entire amount of compensation @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of payment/realisation; d) We further direct that the appellant be paid proportionate cost before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena (supra); e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge