IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1433 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.656/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ VIJAYAN, S/O. IMBICHEKKAN, AGED 53 YEARS RESIDING AT THURAYIL HOSUE, P.O.PERUMUGHANM, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.K. KUNHUMUHAMMAD, S/O. MOIDEEN, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT POOLATHOPIL HOUSE, KARUVARAKKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KURUVARAKKUNNU, MALAPAPURAM-676505.(OWNER OF THE CAR NO.KL-7/R-4750). 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MANAPPURAM CENTRE, HMT JUNCTION,KALAMASSERY, PIN-683104.(INSURER OF THE CAR NO.KL-7/R-4750). 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. COCHIN CADALS(P) LTD. KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-683104. (REAL OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING REG.NO.KL-7/R-4750) BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1433 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. Claimant is the appellant. He, a 47 year old Contractor claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 3.4.2004. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture. He was an inpatient for a period of 11 days. He had suffered permanent disablity which was assessed by the medical board under Ext.C1 to be 20%. He claimed to be a contractor earning an income of Rs.6000/- per month. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned award directed payment of a total amount of Rs.1,15,296/- as compensation as per the details given in paragraph 10 of the impugned award, which we extract below:- Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 Transport to hospital 750 2 Extra noursihment 500 3 Loss of earnings 6000 4 Bystander's expenses 1100 5 Treatment expenses 3096 M.A.C.A.No.1433 of 2011 2 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 6 Pain and suffering 10000 7 Permanent disability (3000 x 12 x 13 x 20/100) 93600 TOTAL 115296 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Challenge is raised on the ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 4. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the monthly income of the appellant reckoned at Rs.3,000/- reckoned by the Tribunal is not fair and just. The appellant claims to be a contractor. Not a semblance of evidence was adduced to show that he was a contractor or the quantum of income he derives from the work as a contractor. The accident took place on 2004 and the Tribunal in these circumstances fairly assumed that the monthly income of the claimant would be Rs.3000/- only. We are unable to find any thing wrong in that assumption of prudence drawn by M.A.C.A.No.1433 of 2011 3 the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that at any rate the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount of compensation under the head of loss of amenities. 20% disability for 47 year old appellant is established. Such physical disability suffered by a person will have two fold reflections on his life. It reduces the earning capacity. It also reduces the quality of enjoyment of life which the claimant can aspire to lead thereafter for the entire rest of his life. Taking the age of the appellant and the extent of physical disability proved by Ext.C1, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded as compensation under the head loss of amenities. 6. We are not persuaded to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded under any other heads. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation as per the details given below:- M.A.C.A.No.1433 of 2011 4 Loss of amenities (No amount has been awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.25,000.00 TOTAL Rs.25,000.00 8. The learned counsel prays that proportionate cost has not been awarded as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K (2011 (3) KLT 943) and only an amount of Rs.850/- has been awarded as cost. We agree with the appellant that the appellant is entitled to proportionate cost for the proceedings before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation as held in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K (2011 (3) KLT 943). 9. In the result:- a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand 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 M.A.C.A.No.1433 of 2011 5 compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal. d) The proportionate cost for the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be awarded on the entire of amount of compensation calculated as per the dictum in Jeena v. Satheesh Babu.K. (2011 (3) KLT 943). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj. R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- C.M.Appln. No.2179 of 2011 in M.A.C.A. No.1433 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Basant, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 98 days in filing the appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company which has been made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. We take a lenient view. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj.