IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 107 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.411/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- MR.SHAJAHAN, UMMASSEL VELI, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. MR.N.C.J.THOMAS, N.C.HOUSE, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. MR.FRANCIS, S/O. SEBASTIAN, MANNAPRAMBIL, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R3 DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY FOR R1 SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE FOR R1 SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH FOR R1 SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 107 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant is the appellant. He claimed an amount of Rs.8,54,600/- lakhs as compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.82,900/- in all. The claimant/appellant is aggrieved by the impugned award. 2. The claimant was a person aged 25 years on the date of the accident. Injuries including fracture was suffered on the cervical spine. He was hospitalised for a total period of 22 days in 2 spells. He had undergone a surgery also. He had suffered physical disability of 20%. He had produced bills to show medical expenses of Rs.18,726/-. The Tribunal did not resort to the multiplier multiplicand method to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable for reduction of earning M.A.C.A. No. 107 of 2004 -: 2 :- capacity consequent to the disability suffered. A total amount of Rs.35,000/- was awarded as a global amount for the disability suffered. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the quantification of compensation for the physical disability suffered. 20% disability has been suffered and that is established by the disability certificate - Ext.A5 produced. Physical disability is 20% and considering the nature of the employment of the appellant as a head load worker it is only reasonable to assume that such physical disability has resulted in loss of earning power to the same extent for the claimant - a head load worker. The Tribunal, according to us, erred in not specifically computing the quantum of compensation payable for reduction of earning capacity following the physical disability suffered using the multiplier multiplicand method. In addition to the compensation that is payable, adopting that method, further amount is also liable to be paid for the loss of amenities endured by the young claimant aged 25 years consequent to the disability suffered certified in Ext.A5. We are satisfied that the amounts awarded under other heads are absolutely reasonable. But we are satisfied that the total global amount of Rs.35,000/- awarded as compensation for the physical disability is not correct. The correct method has not been followed also. The appellant, we M.A.C.A. No. 107 of 2004 -: 3 :- are satisfied, is entitled an amount of Rs.77,760/- (Rs.1800 x 12 x 20/100 x 18) as compensation for reduction of earning capacity consequent to the physical disability suffered. Such physical disability is reflected in the quality of enjoyment of life in addition to the loss of earning and we are satisfied that a global amount of Rs.25,000/- to be awarded under this head of loss of amenities would be absolutely justified. 4. On the basis of the above discussions, the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.67,760/- (Rs.77,760/- plus Rs.25,000/- minus Rs.35,000/-) as further amount of compensation. 5. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed. (b) The impugned award is modified. (c) In addition to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant shall be entitled to a further amount of Rs.67,760/-. 6. The direction for payment of cost and interest is upheld. R. BASANT (Judge) P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON Nan/ (Judge) M.A.C.A. No. 107 of 2004 -: 4 :-