IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2007 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1929 MFA.No. 506 of 2002(A) ------------------------------- OPMV.692/1995 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA ........................................ APPELLANT: APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------- LEELA, W/O. LATE MOHANAN, OPPAMTHARA HOUSE, CHAKROOTIVAYAL P.O., NERIKUNDU, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.LLOYD JOSEPH VIVERA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. N.J. MATHEW, S/O. JOHN, THARIPPOYIL HOUSE, MARATHATT, THOMATTUCHAL AMSOM DESOM, SULTHAN BATHERY, NOW RESIDING AT NARIPPOYIL VEEDU, PADICHIRA POST, PULPALLY, SULTHAN BATHERY. (DRIVER OF KRD 6103 JEEP) 2. SREEJITH. K.V., S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN KUTTIYIL HOUSE, KUPPAKKOLLI, AMBALAVAL AMSOM DESOM, SULTHAN BATHERY, (DRIVER OF KLW 3496 JEEP) 3. K. SULOCHANA, D/O. RAMACHANDRA MENON, "ASWATHI", H.NO.4/272, AMBALAVAYAL, SULTHAN BATHERY. (OWNER OF KRD.6103 JEEP) 4. V.P. MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O. SAIDALI, VATTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL AMSOM DESOM SULTHAN BATHERY. (OWNER OF KLW 4396 JEEP) M.F.A NO. 506/2002 5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SULTHAN BATHERY. (P.NO.100311/31/50/11/0046/94 (KRD-6103 JEEP AND P.NO.100311/31/50/11/1021/94 KLW-3496 JEEP) BY ADV. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K --- R1 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) --- R5 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ---------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 506 of 2002 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2007 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellant/Claimant met with an accident on 2.3.1995 and suffered serious injuries. She claimed a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. The tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.34,500/- only. The tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the fifth respondent insurance company. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. 2. As far as the injuries are concerned, the tribunal has given the details of the injury after considering Ext.A3 wound certificate, Ext.A4 disability certificate, Ext.A5 C.T. scan report and Exts.A7 to A10 prescriptions. The tribunal has stated as follows: "..... A perusal of the said documents would show that the petitioner has sustained head injury and lacerated wound on 12 c.m. long on scalp. The C.T. scan report produced by the petitioner would show that the petitioner is having moderate diffuse cerebral oedema. The said documents would further go to show that the petitioner was treated at first in the Medical College Hospital, Calicut as an inpatient for a period of thirteen days and thereafter she was treated there as an outpatient." M.F.A.No.506/2002 -: 2 :- Thereafter, it was held as follows: "To prove that in the accident, the petitioner has sustained disability, the petitioner has produced Ext.A13, a disability certificate issued by Dr. Nirmal Rasalam, Associate Professor of Surgery, Medical College Hospital, Calicut. This certificate is seen issued on 17.7.1995. As per which the doctor who issued the same has assessed 16% as permanent disability considering the fact that the petitioner was having recurrent loss of memory, giddiness and severe headache, she has weakness both lower limbs and is unable to do household jobs, she is unable to do any heavy manual labour and she is scared about travel in a vehicle and even after prolonged treatment, she continues to have the above disabilities. Genuineness of Ext.A13 was not disputed. Ext.A15 is the medical certificate issued by PW1, Dr. K.Ebrahim, Civil Surgeon attached to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, S. Bathery." Tribunal also found that in view of the disability, she is unable to do any strenuous work. The tribunal has taken Rs.700/- as the notional income. According to the appellant, she was a coolie earning Rs.3,000/- per month, but, tribunal has fixed only Rs.700/- per month. Here, she was an earning member and her service to the family as a mother also cannot be under-estimated. Her husband had expired already and she has to earn for herself. Under the second schedule, even for a non-earning member, annual notional income is fixed at Rs.15,000/- (Rs.1,250/- per month). We are of the view that at least the above amount should be fixed as the annual notional income. M.F.A.No.506/2002 -: 3 :- Considering her age and low multiplicand fixed, taking guidance from the second schedule and circumstances of the case, we fix 15 as the multiplier. If that be so, compensation payable will be Rs.15000 x 15 x 16 = Rs.36,000/-. The tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for disability 100 and loss of earning power. Therefore, appellant will be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.26,000/- under these heads. Even though it was argued that compensation granted under other heads are very meagre, we are not enhancing the same except for loss of earning. The tribunal found that the appellant was under treatment for six months and she was 100% disabled for six months. Since we have increased the income to Rs.1,250/- per month, she will be entitled to Rs.3,300/- for loss of actual earning. We are not enhancing the compensation under other heads. The additional compensation of Rs.29,300/- over and above the amount decreed by the tribunal should be deposited by the fifth respondent with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, appellant is entitled to withdraw the same. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K. HEMA JUDGE vaa J.B. KOSHY AND K.HEMA,JJ. --------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 505 of 2002 --------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:2nd November, 2007