IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 49 of 2007() --------------------- OPMV.2532/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV)NO.2532/98: ---------------------------------------------------- MR. P.C. ANU, S/O. CHARRAPANI, PARISANAKADU, PANANGAD P.O., COCHIN-6. BY ADV. SRI.K.JANARDHANAN SRI.MANURAJ. K.J RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------- 1. HAMEED K.P., KAPPATHIL HOUSE, PANAVALLY, THRICHATTUKULAM, NEAR CHERTHALAI.(DELETED) (THE NAME OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 30.9.09 IN I.A.No.2718/09) 2. VIDYADHARAN, PANDARAPATTATHIL VEEDU, PANANGAD P.O., KUMBALAM VILLAGE. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., COCHIN-5. ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.49 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. Claimant is the appellant before us. A motor accident occurred on 11/3/1997. Claimant suffered injuries. He was a minor aged 16 years at the relevant time. He was an in-patient for a period of 15 days. He had suffered fracture, dislocation of the left wrist and injury to nerve and tendons. Other injuries were also there. He had allegedly suffered permanent disability which was assessed by the medical board of the General Hospital at Ernakulam at 25% as per Ext.A5. The Tribunal assessed the total compensation payable at Rs.42,250/- as per the details shown below: Rs. 1. Transport to hospital 500/- 2. Damages to clothing 250/- 3. Extra nourishment 500/- M.A.C.A.NO.49/07 -2- 4. Bystander's expenses 500/- 5. Medical expenses 18,000/- 6. Loss of service 2,500/- 7. Pain and suffering 10,000/- 8. Loss of amenities 5,000/- 9. Physical disability 5,000/- --------------- Total Rs.42,250/- 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurer have been heard. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on various grounds. 3. First of all, it is contended that the amounts awarded under the head of extra nourishment and bystander's expenses are totally insufficient and do not constitute just and reasonable compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal erred grossly in not considering M.A.C.A.NO.49/07 -3- the reduction in earning capacity. Ext.A5 certificate, at any rate, reveals permanent physical disability and it was absolutely reasonable for the Tribunal to assume that this physical disability for the left hand must result in reduction in earning capacity and impairment in the quality of life. For these heads together only an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded and this is grossly inadequate, it is contended. The learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal erred in reckoning the percentage of physical disability at 10% only against Ext.A5 which shows that 25% was the physical disability suffered. The Tribunal also committed the error of assuming that Ext.A5 shows the disability of 20%. In any view of the matter, the amount awarded as compensation for consequences of physical disability deserves to be enhanced, contends the learned counsel. 4. We find merit in this contention of the learned M.A.C.A.NO.49/07 -4- counsel. Altogether there was hospitalisation for a period of 14 days and we are satisfied that a higher amount of compensation is payable under the heads of extra nourishment and bystander's expenses. 5. We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the percentage disability was assumed to be only 10% on inadequate data. Ext.A5 has been perused by us. In the light of the other evidence available about the nature of injuries and the treatment given, we are of the opinion that Ext.A5 can safely be accepted to conclude that the claimant/appellant had suffered dislocation with ankylosis and defective functioning of the extensor tendons (L). Even in the absence of better evidence, from the available inputs, we find it safe to assume that reduction in earning capacity to the extent of 15% must have resulted. The Tribunal, according to us went wrong in not ascertaining the quantum of compensation payable for the reduction of M.A.C.A.NO.49/07 -5- earning capacity consequent to the physical disability suffered by resorting to the multiplier-multiplicant method. Notwithstanding the fact that the injured victim was a minor at the relevant time that method must have been resorted to. Considering the age of the victim (16 years) at the time of the accident, 16 can safely be reckoned as the multiplier applicable. Drawing inspiration from the 2nd schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, Rs.1,250/- per mensem can also be assumed to be the notional monthly income. 6. This disability must certainly have impaired quality of life and the amenities which the victim can aspire to enjoy in future. For that also, compensation is liable to be paid. 7. We are in these circumstances satisfied that the claimant/appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.42,100/- as per the details shown below in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. M.A.C.A.NO.49/07 -6- Rs. (i) Extra nourishment -14X50(i.e.,Rs.700) – Rs.500 =200.00 (ii)Bystander's expenses- 14X100(i.e.,Rs.1,400) – Rs.500 = 900.00 (iii)Loss of amenities and impairment in the quality of life-Rs.15,000 -Rs.10,000(awarded already under the composite head of loss of amenities and physical disability) = 5,000.00 (iv)Reduction in earning capacity consequent to disability -Rs.1,250x12x16 x15/100 = 36,000.00 ------------------ Total Rs.42,100.00 =========== In the result: (a) this appeal is allowed in part. (b) the 3rd respondent shall pay to the appellant an amount of Rs.42,100/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand and One Hundred only) as per the details shown above in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal. (c) It is further directed that interest shall be payable on the compensation amount at the rate directed by the Tribunal from the date of M.A.C.A.NO.49/07 -7- the petition on the above enhanced amount also. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn