IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 302 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.11/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS ---------------------------------- B.JAGADEESH KUMAR, 27 YERARS, S/O.BALAN, IRUVILANGADE VEEDU, POST CHOOLANNUR, PERINGOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD, NOW RESIDING AT ERANDATH HOUSE, LSN CONVENT ROAD, OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUDHEER, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AYYAMKULAM HOUSE, S.K.PURAM, PALAKKAD, (OWNER OF LORRY KL-9 A/1056). 2. MOHANDAS, S/O.SANKARAN, DRIVER, BHADAMPARA VEEDU, KOLEKKAD, CHERPLASSERY, PALAKKAD. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE, CO.LTD., OTTAPPALAM, (POLICY VALID FROM 13.03.02 TO 12.03.03). 4. A.RAMESH KUMAR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, 4 CROPS, INI FS COMPANY, C/O.99 APO. (OWNER/DRIVER OF BIKE-NEW NO.KL-9H/7186 OLD NO.AS-02/602 BIKE). 5. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., HEAD OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, BOMBAY. ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R5 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 SMT.P.K.RADHIKA FOR R1 & 2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.302 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation for personal injuries suffered in a motor accident. The appellant was aged 27 years on the date of the accident. He suffered fracture of both bones of right leg. He was a supervisor in a private company and was employed at Bangalore. He underwent treatment for 14 days. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked and the doctor, who issued Ext.A12 disability certificate, was examined as PW1. 2. The Tribunal taking into consideration all the relevant inputs sailed to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.92,910/- along with interest @ 6% per annum and cost. Accordingly the impugned award was passed. 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the precise nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the M.A.C.A. No.302 of 2006 2 impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant challenges the impugned award on 2 specific grounds. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the monthly income of the appellant has been reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/-. But more surprisingly when the loss of actual earnings of 1 ½ months' and loss of earning capacity consequent to disability were considered, the Tribunal had reckoned only Rs.3,000/- as the multiplicand unjustifiably reducing the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- by one third. This is stated to be on account of the fact that one third would be required for the personal expenses of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no rhyme or reason in reducing the monthly income by one third when the question to be considered is not the dependency of the dependents in the absence of the injured/deceased. The appellant is very much alive. His expenses will have to be met and in these circumstances the reduction of one third of the monthly income on the ground that the appellant will have to incur personal expenses is not justified at all. We find the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to be absolutely reasonable, fair and just. We are not satisfied that the reduction of the monthly income by one third, M.A.C.A. No.302 of 2006 3 when multiplicand was reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, is justified. 4. Consequently the appellant will be entitled to a further amount of Rs.1,500/- [4,500 minus 3,000] (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) and Rs.15,120/- [45,360 (ie. 3000 X 12 X 18 X 7/100) minus 30,240] (Rupees Fifteen thousand one hundred and twenty only)more under the heads of loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity consequent to disability. 5. We are not satisfied against the challenge raised against compensation awarded under the other heads. A total amount of Rs.30,000/- has been awarded under the composite head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the permanent disability suffered has been adequately compensated both under the heads of loss of earning capacity and loss of amenities. 6. Interest is seen awarded only @ 6% per annum. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that consistent with the binding precedents interest must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. M.A.C.A. No.302 of 2006 4 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.16,620/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand six hundred and twenty only) as compensation in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. There shall be a further direction that interest shall be payable @ 7.5% per annum on the total amount from the date of the petition along with cost as already awarded by the Tribunal. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-