IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 987 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.705/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- DR. V.G. MANI, S/O. GANGADHARAN, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, THURAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. P.V. PAULOSE, S/O. VARGHESE, PYAADATHU HOUSE, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., ANGAMALY BRANCH. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2008, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 1765 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 987 & 1765 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Connected appeals are filed by the father and daughter both of whom sustained injuries in a road accident. The accident happened when the car driven by the appellant in M.A.C.A.No. 987 of 2006 hit against a tipper lorry. Both the appellants were in the hospital for a considerable period of time. While the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.987 of 2006 sustained major injuries on his chest including fracture of several ribs, his daughter sustained head injuries including fracture of the frontal bone. The father who sustained injuries was a professor in a Dental College in Karnataka. His daughter, the other claimant, was a student in the very same college. Even though disability was certified for both, compensation was granted under this head only to the daughter, that too on a reduced per centage, and not for the father at all, for the reason that the father continued his profession even after the accident. 2 2. Counsel for the appellants contended that in both cases, enhancement is called for. On the other hand, standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that adequate compensation was granted based on available evidence. In the case of appellant in M.A.C.A.No. 987 of 2006, even though he sustained major injuries on his chest, including fracture of ribs, and contusion of lungs, the Tribunal did not grant compensation for loss of earning because even after the accident he continued his job. However, we find that there is no clear evidence as to how long the appellant would have continued in the job in the private Dental College, and whether the injuries sustained by him would result in leaving the job before normal tenure. The fact that he continued his profession after the accident does not by itself mean that he will continue to carry on his job and earn income for the period he could have, had the accident not taken place. Considering the serious nature of injuries, his hospitalisation for nearly a month with ventilator support for some days, he is entitled to some amount of compensation for loss of earning capacity which he is likely to feel in life. However, since detailed evidence is not available, we grant compensation for loss of earning power at Rs. 25,000/-. Besides this, we feel appellant should be given another Rs. 10,000/- for probable loss of income 3 during the period of recoupment which was limited by the MACT to Rs. 20,000/-. We therefore dispose of MACA No. 987 of 2006 by granting additional compensation of Rs. 35,000/- to the appellant therein with direction to the insurance company to deposit this amount with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of deposit. 3. So far as the appellant in M.A.C.A.No. 1765 of 2006 is concerned, we find that the appellant was only 20 years of age at the time of the accident and she sustained major head injury resulting in 15% permanent disability certified by doctor. The Tribunal has however reduced disability to 8% and granted compensation of Rs. 23,040/-. We do not find any justification to reduce the percentage of disability certified by a qualified doctor, more so, in this case, the nature of injuries are to the frontal bone and face of the appellant. Even though counsel for the appellant stated that income adopted is too low for the purpose of fixation of compensation, standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that for a student only notional income in accordance with guidelines can be taken, which is what the Tribunal has done. Even if this argument is accepted, appellant is entitled to higher compensation because of her entitlement for 4 compensation based on higher percentage of disability certified by the doctor. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that going by the age of the appellant the multiplier should be 17 as against 16 applied by the Tribunal. Considering all these, we enhance the compensation under this head from Rs. 23,040/- to Rs. 50,000/-. Since the appellant was very young and 20 years of age at the time of accident, and since she has sustained major injuries to the frontal bone and future problems like chance of epilepsy, loss of memory, etc. are apprehended by the doctor in the certificate, we grant a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of enjoyment in life . The appeal stands allowed to the above extent with direction to the insurance company to deposit additional compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of deposit. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 5