IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1889 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.424/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, WAYANAD, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ---------------------------------- ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.MOLLA @ MOIDEENKUTTY, KARIAPPAYIL HOUSE, KADOOR, MEPPADI P.O., KOTTAPPADY VILLAGGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. KISHORE, S/O.N.K.NADARAJAN KISHORE, KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE, PUTTAD P.O., VADUVANCHAL, MEPPADI, VYTHRI ROAD, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (DVR OF THE KL 12/A 8913 JEEP) 2. N.NADARAJAN, KOCHUVEEDU, NATHAMKUNI, PUTTAD P.O., MEPPADI, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (R.C.OWNER OF KL 12/A 8913 JEEP) 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KALPANA SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, KALPATTA. (INSURER OF KL 12/A 8913 JEEP) ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) FOR R1 & R2 SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) FOR R1 & R2 SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) FOR R1 & R2 SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.1889 of 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT R.BASANT, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident. An amount of Rs.6 lakhs was claimed by the complainant. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,54,140/- along with interest and cost. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. The appellant is alleged to be a person aged 24 years at the time of the accident. He was allegedly working as a workshop mechanic. His income was asserted to be Rs.15,000/- per month. He was an inpatient for a period of 14 days and was treated at 2 hospitals. He had suffered multiple fractures - fracture of both bones of the right leg - segmental open comminuted fracture patella right, fracture of the zygomatic complex right and fracture of right temporal bone with facial nerve palsy. He underwent procedures at the hospital. Even after discharge, he continued treatment as an outpatient. He was reviewed at the hospital till October, 2003, the accident having taken place on 23.06.2002. He had suffered permanent M.A.C.A.No.1889 of 2005 2 physical disability to the extent of 19% as ascertained in Ext.A6 disability certificate. 3. The claimant tendered evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked. No other evidence was adduced in the case. The Tribunal after adverting to the evidence adduced, quantified the compensation payable at Rs.1,54,140/-. The learned counsel for the appellant was requested to explain the specific challenge which he wants to raise against the heads of compensation awarded. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that though it was asserted by the appellant on oath that the he was earning an income of Rs.15,000/- and there was no serious grounds to doubt or suspect that version, the Tribunal had accepted only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income of the appellant. This is incorrect. Taking a realistic view of the circumstances, a higher amount must have been fixed as the monthly earnings taking into account the age of the claimant as also his employment as a workshop mechanic. The counsel points out that even from 1994 the law enables the Tribunals to presume that an amount of Rs.1,250/- must have been earned by a person even if he is a non earning person. In these M.A.C.A.No.1889 of 2005 3 circumstances the counsel contends that the monthly income reckoned must definitely be raised upward. 5. We take note of all the relevant circumstances. We are satisfied that it would be absolutely reasonable to reckon the monthly income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.2,000/- per mensem. The loss of earnings awarded by the Tribunal for 6 months must hence be reckoned as Rs.12,000/- instead of Rs.9,000/- awarded. The appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.3,000/- under this head. 6. The counsel then contends that the quantum of compensation for reduction earning capacity consequent to disability has not been assessed correctly. 19% is the physical disability assessed under Ext.A6. The Tribunal accepted the same as the reduction earning capacity also. The appellant/claimant is shown to be aged 24 years and the Tribunal accepted the highest multiplier admissible for the relevant age under the second schedule - 17, to ascertain the quantum of compensation. We are not, in these circumstances, satisfied that there is any defect in the computation of compensation under this head. The monthly earnings can be reckoned as Rs.2,000/- as already held. The appellant will consequently be entitled for a M.A.C.A.No.1889 of 2005 4 further amount of Rs.19,380/- [ie. 2,000 X 12 X 17 X 19/100 minus 1,500 X 12 X 17 X 19/100]. 7. The counsel then contends that considering the nature of the injuries - multiple fractures suffered and the fact that the appellant was an inpatient for 14 days and had to continue his treatment for a long period of time, the quantum of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is too low. Rs.10,000/- is not a just and fair compensation for the pain and suffering endured by the appellant, submits the learned counsel. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can in the circumstances of the case be awarded to the appellant considering the nature of the details, injury, treatment procedures and the follow up treatment taken as revealed from the discharge summary-Ext.A10. The appellant thus becomes entitled for a further amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. 8. The counsel then urges that the quantum of compensation awarded for loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- is also not adequate. 19% physical disability has been suffered and the appellant aged about 24 years will have to live with such disability suffering the impairment/reduction in the quality of enjoyment of life for the rest of his life. The amount of M.A.C.A.No.1889 of 2005 5 Rs.10,000/- awarded under this head is inadequate, contends counsel. We find merit in that contention. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.20,000/- in all, ie. Rs.10,000/- more can be awarded under this head. 9. We are not persuaded to agree that the amounts fixed under the other heads deserve any modification. 10. The counsel finally submits that the award of interest @ 6% per annum is too inadequate and unrealistic. The interest must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum, argues the counsel. We agree with the learned counsel on that aspect. 11. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.37,380/- [3,000+19,380+5000+10,000] (Rupees Thirty seven thousand three hundred and eighty only) in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. He will also be entitled for interest on the total amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. Cost as directed by the Tribunal shall also be paid. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON) rtr/-