IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 805 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.2319/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT(PETITIONER IN THE CLAIMS TRIBUNAL) ---------------------------------------------------------- VAKAPPATTA ASSAINAR, S/O. MOHAMMED, VAKAPPATTA, AYANIKKODE, PORUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ------------------------------------------------- 1. K.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, THRIKKALANGODE AMSOM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O. HASSAINAR, KUNDUTHODIKA HOUSE, THRIKKALANGODE AMSOM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.805 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered in an accident which occurred on 27/4/95. The claimant was aged 25 years at the time of the accident. He was the Manager of M/s Valassery Wood Industries. He claimed to earn an income of Rs.4,000/- per mensem. He had suffered multiple fractures. Fracture of the right femur shaft and neck were suffered. Crack fracture of the right scapula was suffered. CT scan revealed fracture of the right temporal bone and contusion of the brain with brain oedema. He continued as an inpatient for a period of 34 days. He had suffered disability to the extent of 12%. The disability was assessed by a Medical Board at the District Hospital, Manjeri, with three M.A.C.A. No.805 of 2003 -: 2 :- members. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The disability certificate – Ext.X1 issued by the Medical Board was also marked. 2. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.1,45,200/- as compensation as per the details given below in para-7: “Loss of earnings (6 x 2500) - Rs.15,000/- Transportation to hospital - Rs.2,000/- Extra nourishment - Rs.2,000/- Medical and treatment expenses- Rs.50,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs.15,000/- Compensation for disability (2500 x 12 x 12/100 x 17) - Rs.61,200/- ------------------- Total - Rs.1,45,200/-” ======== 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant raises various grounds. 4. First of all, it is contended that the monthly income of M.A.C.A. No.805 of 2003 -: 3 :- the appellant reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/- is not reasonable and realistic. Ext.A6 salary certificate was produced by the appellant. The employer of the appellant had certified the monthly income to be Rs.4,000/- Of course, the author of the certificate was not examined and no better and indisputable input was made available to ascertain the precise quantum of monthly income. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, accepted only Rs.2,500/- to be the monthly income of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this is too inadequate and unjustifiable reason to note Ext.A6 as such. 5. We note that the law under the 2nd Schedule to the M.V. Act permits and enables the Tribunals to draw a presumption of prudence from 1994 that even a non-earning person can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.1,250/- per mensem. The appellant is shown to have a stable employment. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that higher amount of monthly income can safely be assumed. The burden is always on the claimant to place satisfactory evidence before the Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to pass a fair, just and reasonable award. If no clinching data is made available, it is only the claimant who can be left to suffer for such an adequacy. But all the same, reasonable inferences of prudence can readily M.A.C.A. No.805 of 2003 -: 4 :- be drawn by the Tribunal which is constituted for the very purpose of dispensing rough and ready justice. It is, in these circumstances, that we hold that the monthly income of the appellant can be reckoned at Rs.3,000/-. Consequently, the appellant will be entitled for higher amount of compensation under the heads of loss of earnings and compensation for reduction in earning capacity. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the multiplier adopted as 17 is not just. The appellant is shown to be aged 25 years and therefore the multiplier applicable to persons of the age group 25 to 30 must have been adopted and in that event it would have been 18 and not 17, contends the learned counsel. The learned counsel points out that in some of the documents the age is shown as more than 25 years. That controversy can easily be resolved by the appellant by producing tangible and acceptable data about the precise age. The appellant having not done so, he cannot be heard to complain that he must have been brought under the head of persons of the age group 25 to 30 years. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that though 12% physical disability has been held to result, no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities. M.A.C.A. No.805 of 2003 -: 5 :- An idea about the nature of the disability can be readily drawn from Ext.X1 disability certificate. We agree that an amount must have been awarded under the head of loss of amenities as the appellant will have to live with the disability and endure the consequent reduction in the quality of life for, at least a period of 4 to 4 ½ decades – going by the life expectancy of an average Indian. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded as compensation under this head. 8. The learned counsel then submits that no amount has been awarded as expenses for the bystander though it is proved satisfactorily that the appellant, who had suffered serious injuries, was an inpatient for a period of 34 days. We are satisfied that the bystander's expenses at the rate of Rs.150/- per day can be awarded to the appellant. 9. Implants were made in the body of the appellant. The discharge summary shows that future expenses are anticipated if implants were to be removed. There is nothing to show that implants have been removed so far. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that provision can be made for such future treatment by awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the quantum of compensation awarded for pain and suffering is too low. An M.A.C.A. No.805 of 2003 -: 6 :- idea about the pain endured can be gathered from the nature of the multiple injuries suffered and the period of hospitalisation. We are satisfied that a total amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded as compensation for pain and suffering. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under other heads deserve modification. 10. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the following further amounts as compensation in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal: 1. Pain and suffering (Rs.20,000/- minus Rs.15,000/-) - Rs.5,000/- 2. Loss of earnings (6 x 3000 minus 15000) - Rs.3,000/- 3. Bystander's expenses (no amount awarded - Rs.150/- x 34) - Rs.5,100/- 4. Loss of amenities (no amount awarded) - Rs.10,000/- 5. Compensation for reduction in earning capacity - (3000 x 12 x 17 x 12/100 minus Rs.61,200/-) - Rs.12,240/- 6. Future medical expenses (no amount awarded) - Rs.5,000/- ---------------- Total - Rs.40,340/- ======= M.A.C.A. No.805 of 2003 -: 7 :- 11. Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the petition. R. BASANT (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) Nan/ M.A.C.A. No.805 of 2003 -: 8 :-