IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1226 of 2011() ----------------------- OPMV.1770/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ---------------------- SHIYAS.M.A, SON OF ABOOBACKER, MUCHETH HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SAMBHAJI TUKRAM DAHARME, A.P.RETHARA B.K, TALUK KARAD, DISTRICT SATARA, MAHARASHTRA-415 001. 2. SANTHOSH VITHAL SHINDE, SON OF VITHAL SHINDE, SON OF SURESH KUMAR, DRIVER, HOUSE NO.118, KOLLY VADY P.O., SHINDEVADY, KARAD TALUK, DISTRICT SATARA, MAHARASHTRA-415 001. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, T 468/1, OPPOSITE POPATHBHAI PETROL PUMP, SHANIVARPETH, P.B.NO.7, PIN-415 110, KARAD TALUK, DISTRICT SATARA, MAHARASHTRA- 415 001. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1226 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August 2011 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J C.M.Appl.No.1722 of 2011 Heard. Delay of 46 days in representation is condoned. Number the M.A.C.A. M.A.C.A.No.1226 of 2011 Claimant is the appellant. He had suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 24/6/2005. He was an in- patient for 19 days. He had suffered three fractures. He had suffered permanent disability allegedly to the tune of 5%. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, directed payment of a total amount of Rs.90,761/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum as per the details given in paragraph 15 which we extract below: M.A.C.A.No.1226/2011 2 Sl.No Head of claim compensation for Amount claimed (in Rupees) Amount Awarded (in Rupees) Basis - vital details in a nut shell 1 Loos of earnings 70000 15760 3940 x 4 months 2 Future loss of earnings 50000 NIL 3 Transport to Hospital 1500 500 4 Extra nourishment 7000 2000 5 Damage to clothings etc. 750 250 6 Attendants charges 7500 1900 Rs.100 x 19 days 7 Pain and suffering 35000 20000 3 fracture IP 19days 8 Loss of amenities etc. 25000 12000 9 Medical expenses 175000 18631 Actual medical bills 10 Disability 175000 9720 3000 x 12 x 9 x 3% 11 Loss of earning power 100000 NIL 12 Disfiguration 20000 NIL 13 Mental shock & agony 15000 NIL 14 Marriage prospects 25000 NIL 15 Loss of four teeth NIL 10000 Total 7,06,750 Limited to 3,50,000 90761 ===== 90,761/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. 2. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on the following grounds: i) The monthly income reckoned by the Tribunal for the purpose of ascertaining compensation for reduction in earning capacity by the multiplier-multiplicand method is too low. M.A.C.A.No.1226/2011 3 ii) The extent of physical disability assessed by the Tribunal at 3%, below 5% certified by the Doctor is not justified. 3. We have considered all the relevant inputs. The salary certificate produced by the appellant shows that after reimbursements his monthly salary would be Rs.3,000/- and the Tribunal reckoned only that for the ascertainment of compensation by applying multiplier-multiplicand method. We find absolutely nothing wrong in the approach made by the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal took note of the disability and came to the conclusion that only 3% can be reckoned as the extent of physical disability. The alleged disabilities reported in the disability certificate are given in paragraph 13 which we extract below: “1. Terminal degrees of movements of right knee reduced. 2. Pronation and supination left forearm reduced terminal degrees. 3. X-ray of left forearm taken on 13/10/2008 shows fractures both bones with plate and screw in situ.” M.A.C.A.No.1226/2011 4 5. The Tribunal did not choose to accept the opinion in the disability certificate by PW1 that the extent of disability was 5%, the same was reckoned only at 3%. Considering the nature of injuries, we are not persuaded to agree that this finding of the Tribunal is one that warrants interference by invoking the appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. At any rate, we are satisfied that the decision to reckon only 3% as the reduction in earning capacity following physical disability needs no interference. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant finally contends that 9 alone was reckoned as the multiplier. The tribunal has given valid reasons for the same. There is nothing to show that his income or earnings in the present employment is in any way reduced by the insignificant physical disability suffered. However, the Tribunal took note of the possible reduction in earnings after the appellant attains the age of 58 years i.e after his retirement from service. We are satisfied that the said finding also does not warrant interference. M.A.C.A.No.1226/2011 5 7. To persuade us to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by invoking the appellate jurisdiction strong and satisfactory reasons must be shown to exist. When two different minds evaluate and assess compensation, it is only natural that there can be some differences. Such insignificant differences cannot persuade us to invoke the appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We are of the opinion that the total amount of compensation awarded at Rs.90,761/- can, by no stretch of imagination, be held to be insufficient, unreasonable or unjust. 8. This M.A.C.A is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limini. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1226/2011 6 M.A.C.A.No.1226/2011 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010