IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 214 of 2005(a) ---------------------- OPMV.1147/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- RAMDAS, S/O.ACHUTHA MENON, RESIDING AT "SREE VLASAM", THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.LEJU T.BALAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. A.ANJANAYELU, S/O.A.RAMAPPA, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.8/50, ANANTAPPUR ROAD, NANCHAPPA, ANANDAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. C.RAGHAVAN, S/O.C.SREERAMALU, RESIDING AT 715 WARD, NANCHAPPA DISTRICT, ANANDAPPURI P.O., ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 10/130, SUBASG ROAD, ANANDAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R.3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.214 of 2005-A ***************************** Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 01.01.2000. He was an Engineer in the Public Works Department. He limited his claim to Rs.10 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.2,43,800/- as per the details given below: i) Loss of earnings : Rs.26,000.00 ii) Transport : Rs. 6,000.00 iii) Extra nourishment : Rs. 1,000.00 iv) Bystander's expenses : Rs. 5,000.00 v) Medical expenses : Rs.1,07,000.00 vi) Pain and suffering : Rs. 20,000.00 vii) Permanent disability : Rs. 52,800.00 [52,800.00 (ie. 2000 X 12 X 11 X 20/100) plus 13,000.00] viii) Loss of earning M.A.C.A No.214 of 2005-A 2 power : Rs. 13,000.00 ix) Loss of amenities : Rs. 13,000.00 ---------------------- Total : Rs.2,43,800.00 ========= The challenge is only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. 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 submits that the Tribunal had erred grossly in reckoning the post retiral income at Rs.2,000/- per mensem. The appellant was a qualified Engineer in the Public Works Department. Considering his qualification it was very easy to assume that he would have continued to be employed and that such employment as a retired Engineer would have fetched him much higher monthly income than Rs.2,000/- assumed by the Tribunal. There was clinching evidence to show that at the time of his death he was drawing a monthly income of Rs.16,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant, in these circumstances, has trained all his guns against the multiplicand reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/-. M.A.C.A No.214 of 2005-A 3 3. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that though the disability certificate showed that the appellant had suffered permanent disability to the tune of 41%, the Tribunal reckoned only 20% as the reduction in earning capacity. This is again incorrect, contends the learned counsel. 4. The learned counsel for the insurance company in reply contends that there could not have been any reduction in earnings till the appellant retired at the age of 55 years. Only for the period thereafter the compensation is liable to be paid under the head of reduction in earning capacity. For persons aged 55-60 years, multiplier should not have been taken at any figure higher than 8 as stipulated in the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal had reckoned 11 as the multiplier. The learned counsel for the insurance company further points out that the percentage of physical disability and percentage of reduction in earing capacity are not synonymous terms. Physical disability suffered by individual may or may not have reflection on his earning capacity. In the instant case till the appellant retires from his stable Government employment, there was no impact on his earning capacity because of his physical disability. Thereafter also in his possible employment M.A.C.A No.214 of 2005-A 4 as an Engineer, the physical disability is unlikely to have resulted in the same extent of reduction in his earning capacity. Hence 20% adopted by the Tribunal is absolutely justified, contends the learned counsel for the insurance company. 5. The learned counsel for the insurance company further submits that the Tribunal had in fact awarded a total amount of Rs.78,800/- as compensation for physical disability. Surprisingly after setting apart an amount of Rs.13,000/- for loss of amenities, the Tribunal appears to have awarded a total amount of Rs.65,800/- as compensation, ie. Rs.52,800/- under the head of permanent disability adopting the multiplier- multiplicand method and further an amount of Rs.13,000/- under the self same head calling it loss of earning power. In these circumstances, this Court must reckon that an amount of Rs.65,800/- has already been awarded as compensation for reduction in earning capacity, contends the learned counsel for the insurance company. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We do take into account the possibilities of post retiral engagement of the appellant, a qualified Engineer. We are satisfied, at any rate, that the post retiral economic gain from such employment M.A.C.A No.214 of 2005-A 5 can safely be reckoned at Rs.5,000/- considering the qualification and experience of the appellant. But we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the insurance company that 8, ie. the multiplier applicable to persons aged 55 -60 years, alone can be reckoned as the multiplier. We agree that 20% can be reckoned as the reduction in earning capacity. We further accept that Rs.65,800/- has already been awarded under two heads as compensation for reduction in earning capacity. We have gone through the nature of injuries suffered, nature and period of treatment and the nature of the disability suffered. We are satisfied that amounts awarded under all other heads can safely be reckoned to be fair, reasonable and just. The amounts awarded under the other heads do not warrant interference. 7. We do, in these circumstances, agree that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.30,200/- as compensation under the head of reduction in earning capacity, ie. Rs.5,000 X 12 X 8 X 20/100 = Rs.96,000/- minus Rs.65,800/- = Rs.30,200/-. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant argues and we agree that interest awarded at the rate of 6% per annum is grossly inadequate and interest must have been awarded at 7.5% M.A.C.A No.214 of 2005-A 6 per annum on the entire amount of compensation from the date of the claim to the date of payment/deposit. 9. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.30,200/- (Rupees Thirty thousand and two hundred only) in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal; c) We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of payment/deposit; d) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/ M.A.C.A No.214 of 2005-A 7 R.BASANT & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. *********************** C.M.Appl.No.245 of 2005 in M.A.C.A No.214 of 2005-A ***************************** Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011 ORDER BASANT, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 57 days in filing a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal. Heard. We take a lenient view. 2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) rtr/