IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1094 of 2011() ------------------------------------ OP(MV)NO.38/2003 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PUNALUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. SATHYASEELAN, MURUPPEL HOUSE, THAZHAM MURI, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, MALAYALAPUZHA P.O., PIN-689 666. 2. CHANDRAMATHY, W/O. SATHYASEELAN, MURUPPEL HOUSE, THAZHAM MURI, MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, MALAYALAPUZHA P.O., PIN-689 666. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- C.M.Appln. No.1681/2011 & M.A.C.A No.1094 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT,J. C.M.Appln. No.1681/2011: This petition is to condone the delay of 10 days. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We are proceeding to dispose of the appeal straight away. We do not in these circumstances think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents before taking up the application for condonation of delay. The prayer for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay condoned. M.A.C.A No.1094 OF 2011: 2. This appeal has now come up for admission. Insurer is the appellant. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.5,14,780/- as per the details given below: 1. Loss of earnings : Rs.21,000/- 2. Transportation expense : Rs.10,000/- 3. Extra nourishment : Rs.10,000/- C.M.Appln. No.1681/2011 &M.A.C.A No.1094 OF 2011 2 4. Bystanders expense : Rs.15,000/- 5. Medical expense : Rs.10,000/- 6. Pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/- 7.Compensation for disability : Rs.3,18,780/- (3500x12x11x69/100) 8. Compensation for shortening of life expectancy : Rs.25,000/- 9. Loss of amenities : Rs.30,000/- 10.For future treatment : Rs. 25,000/- --------------- Total Rs.5,14,780/- ========= 3. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant trains all his guns at the compensation awarded for reduction in earning capacity (described as compensation for disability). That amount was calculated on the multiplier-multiplicand method. 69% was accepted as the reduction in earning capacity. Rs.3,500/- was reckoned as monthly income of the victim/claimant, a person aged about 53 years. He was a Rubber-tapper by profession. He had suffered the following injuries: C.M.Appln. No.1681/2011 &M.A.C.A No.1094 OF 2011 3 1. De gloving injury scrotum. 2. Fracture galeazzi left. 3. Fracture left fore arm. 4. Contusion forehead, near left eyes. 5. Fracture Rt thigh, severely injured. 6. Lacerated wound involving deep tissues on the medial aspect. 7. Gennetitia both terticles seems bare-scrotum injured. 4. He had undergone treatment for 140 days. The extend of disability suffered by him is assessed and certified to be 69% by the Doctor at the District Hospital, Kozhanchery. The details of the disability and the calculation on MC Brids scale are given in detail in the certificate. Of course, the author of the certificate was not examined as a witness. 5. We do not find any merit in the contention that acceptance of Rs.3,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased, an experienced rubber tapper aged more than 50 years on the C.M.Appln. No.1681/2011 &M.A.C.A No.1094 OF 2011 4 date of accident that is 4.12.2001 is improper. The presumption of prudence drawn by the Tribunal does not at any rate warrant appellate interference. 6. That leaves us with a challenge against the assessment of reduction in earning capacity. 69% is the reduction in earning capacity certified by the doctor. The Tribunal in the absence of better evidence reckoned the same as the reduction in earning capacity also. We cannot lose site of the fact that the claimant was a rubber tapper, for which work physical ability counts a lot and is of paramount importance. The indications suggest clearly that the appellant was unable to move about even at the time when the evidence was being recorded. Claimant came along with the wife who is a co-petitioner because of his physical condition. In any view of the matter we are satisfied that the assessment of disability at 69% does not warrant interference. We have gone through the certificate Ext.A8 in which all relevant details are given. In any view of the matter the mere non examination of the author of Ext.A8 does not weigh with us a sufficient reason to discard Ext.A8. We further take note of the C.M.Appln. No.1681/2011 &M.A.C.A No.1094 OF 2011 5 circumstance that Tribunal has reckoned 69% itself as the reduction in earning capacity also, not withstanding the fact that the evidence suggested that he was completely bed ridden. In any view of the matter we are of the opinion that total amount of Rs.5,14,780/- awarded as compensation does not warrant appellate interference. 7. We do note that an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded under the head of pain and suffering in addition to a further amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded under the head of shortened expectation of life, and Rs.30,000/- awarded under the head of loss of amenities and Rs.25,000/- awarded under the head of future treatment. Considering the nature of the injuries, nature of the treatment and the resultant disability suffered, we are of the opinion that the amounts awarded are amply justified. 8. This appeal in these circumstances is dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE mns