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. 1516 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.852/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- LAKSHMANAN, S/O. NARAYANAN CHETTIAR RESIDING AT APPAKKAD HOUSE P.O. PUTHUKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN SMT.P.Y.SHEHEERA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K. HAMEED, S/O. MAMMU KURANGALATHIL HOUSE VADAKKUMPAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 109 2 K. JAYAN, S/O. NANU VALIYA KANDY PARAMBATH HOUSE P.O. PINARAYI, TELLICHERY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 670 741 3 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. PRAMOD BUILDING, CHEROOTTY ROAD KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 001. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R-3 STANDING COUNSEL SRI. GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) 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. 1516 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Claimant is the appellant. He, a head load worker aged 32 years claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 06.11.2006. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture on left tibia. He had suffered permanent disability and the same was assessed by a medical board at 15%. Against a total claim limited to Rs. 1,50,000/- the tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.1,14,431/- as per details given in paragraph 10 of the impugned award which we extract below. Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed Amount allowed 1 Loss of earning 40000 5000 (2500 x 2 months) 2 Transport to hospital 12000 2000 3 Extra nourishment 15000 1000 4 Damage to clothing and other articles 750 500 5 Medical expenses 24000 14,231 (as per Ext.A9 series) 6 Bystander's expenses 4500 2700 2 MACA No. 1516/2011 Sl. No. Head of claim Amount claimed Amount allowed 7 Pain and sufferings 40000 15000 8 Loss of amenities 40000 2000 9 Permanent disability 10000 72000 (2500 x 12 x 16x 15/100) Total Rs. 1,14,431/- 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. 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, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the tribunal erred grossly in reckoning only Rs. 2,500/- as the monthly income. There was no better evidence to prove the income. Learned counsel argues that following the dictum in Laxmi Devi & others Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr. [2008 ACJ 1488], the tribunal ought to have accepted Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income. We agree. 4. It is next contended that the quantum of compensation awarded under the loss of amenities is inadequate. 3 MACA No. 1516/2011 Only an amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been awarded. The appellant a person aged 32 years has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15% that has been accepted by the tribunal. We accept that contention. We are satisfied that Rs.15,000/- can be awarded under that head. 5. The other ground of challenge is that the multiplier adopted as '16' is not correct. As per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, for persons like the appellant belonging to 30 to 32 years, '17' should have been accepted as multiplier, contends counsel. We accept that contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs. 38,800/- (Rupees Thirty eight thousand and eight hundred only) in addition to the amount awarded by the tribunal. a) Loss of income : Rs. 1,000/- (2000 x 3 = 6000 minus 5000) b) Reduction in earning capacity: Rs. 19,800/- (3000 x 12 x 17 x 15/100 = 91800 minus 72000 c) Loss of amenities : Rs. 13,000/- (15,000 minus 2,000) ------------------ 4 MACA No. 1516/2011 Total : Rs. 33,800/- ======== 7. We are not persuaded to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded under any other head. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that proportionate cost in the proceedings before the tribunal has not been awarded by the tribunal. Learned counsel argues and we agree that proportionate cost on the entire amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant in the proceedings before the tribunal as held in Jeena Vs. Satheesh Babu K. [2011 (3) KLT 943]. 9. In the result, a) This petition is allowed in part. b) The appellant is entitled for a further sum of Rs. 33,800/- (Rupees Thirty three thousand and eight hundred 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 and for the period as directed by the tribunal. 5 MACA No. 1516/2011 d) We direct proportionate cost for the proceedings before the tribunal be paid to the appellant on the entire amount of compensation as held in the dictum in Jeena (supra). e) All other directions of the tribunal are upheld. R. BASANT JUDGE V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE dnc