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 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 419 of 2007(B) ---------------------- OPMV.629/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- PARIYARATH MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.RAYIN, AGED 46 YEARS, P.O.ANANTHAVOOR, VIA THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. EDISON, S/O.THAMBI, PULIKOTTIL HOUSE, KUNNAMKULAM. NEAR SENIOR GROUND, P.O.KUNNAMKULAM DRIVER. 2. R.MOHANKUMAR, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR P.O., THRISSUR. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THRISSUR. 4. PUZHAKKARA VEETTIL AJAS, S/O.IBRAHIM, VALLURKUNNU VILLAGE, KAVUMKARA DESOM, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. KOCHUMUHAMMED, CHATTAYIL AGENCIES, MUVATTUPUZHA. 6. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA BRANCH. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 & R6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.419 of 2007-B ***************************** Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He had suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 02.08.1999. The 3rd respondent insurance company has been made liable entirely to compensate the appellant. A total amount of Rs.3,35,500/- was awarded as compensation as per the details given in para.14 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Transport to hospital : Rs. 2,000.00 Expenses of bystander : Rs. 2,500.00 Medical expenses : Rs. 57,900.00 Extra nourishment : Rs. 2,000.00 Damage to clothing : Rs. 500.00 Loss of earnings : Rs. 45,000.00(15000 X 3) Loss of earning power : Rs.2,10,600.00 (15000 x 12 x 13 x 9/100) Pain and suffering : Rs. 15,000.00 --------------------- Total : Rs.3,35,500.00 ========= M.A.C.A No.419 of 2007-B 2 2. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation awarded. We note that the 3rd respondent insurance company had also preferred an appeal against the same impugned award. That was disposed of by another Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 25.05.2010 in M.A.C.A No.641 of 2006. The crucial finding in that appeal is that the Bench was of the opinion “that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive”. When that appeal came up for consideration and disposal on 25.05.2010, evidently this appeal was pending. The attention of the Court was not drawn to the fact that another appeal against the same impugned award is pending. It is perhaps unfortunate that neither the counsel nor the Registry brought it to the notice of the Bench that such a connected appeal against the same impugned award is pending before this Court. We deprecate the procedure adopted and direct the Registry strictly to ensure that all appeals against a common award are brought together for consideration and necessary noting is made on all the appeals that such connected appeals are also pending. This would avoid unnecessary embarrassment like the one in the instant case now. 3. The claimant/appellant challenges the impugned M.A.C.A No.419 of 2007-B 3 award now on the sole ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate. The learned counsel for the insurance company on the other hand contends that amounts far in excess of just and reasonable compensation has already been awarded in favour of the appellant. 4. Called upon to be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant primarily contends that the monthly income of the appellant reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.15,000/- per mensem is incorrect and inadequate. He was employed abroad as a hotel worker. He had produced Ext.A7 salary certificate issued by his employer in Abudhabi to suggest that his monthly income was 1,500/- dirham per mensem. At the present rate of conversion that works out to Rs.18,000/- per mensem, it is contended. 5. We must note that when the petition was filed, the appellant was described to be a coolie worker, earning an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. The claim petition was subsequently amended to incorporate the present claim about the employment abroad and his earning an amount of Rs.18,000/- per month. We will assume that for some period of time the appellant was employed abroad and was getting a higher income from such employment. But certainly that is no M.A.C.A No.419 of 2007-B 4 reason to reckon that such income applicable for all the 13 years which has been taken as the multiplier. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that even going by the evidence of the appellant, he was continuing his employment abroad and there is nothing to show that actually there has been any reduction in earning. The other Bench having already come to the conclusion that the amount of compensation awarded is not excessive, we need only consider the contention now as to whether reckoning Rs.15,000/- as the monthly salary is incorrect or inadequate. In the circumstances of the case, where the appellant himself had initially described himself to be a coolie earning an amount of Rs.3,000/- per mensem, we are satisfied that the Tribunal committed no error in accepting Rs.15,000/- as the monthly income for the purpose of ascertaining loss of earning as also for the purpose of ascertaining the loss of earning power. 6. The only other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that no amount has been awarded under the head of loss of amenities notwithstanding the acceptance by the Tribunal that physical disability to the tune of 9% had resulted. Physical disability suffered by a person has M.A.C.A No.419 of 2007-B 5 two fold reflections on his life. It reduces the earning capacity. It also impairs the quality of life. When compensation for loss of earning power has been computed reckoning Rs.15,000/- as the monthly income for all the 13 years reckoned as multiplier, we are of opinion that the failure/omission of the Tribunal not to award any separate amounts under the head of loss of amenities of life consequent to the 9% disability which the appellant had admittedly suffered is not a circumstance that can persuade us to invoke our appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. To sum up, we are convinced that the total amount of Rs.3,35,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is sufficient, adequate, reasonable and just compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident. 8. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/