IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1861 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.1783/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- JAMES, S/O. DEVASSY, PANADAN HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O., VIA. CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. K.O. VARGHESE, S/O. OUSEPH, KURUBAAN KUDY HOUSE, MAVELIPADY, KOOVAPADY P.O. 2. YAZER, S/O. KOZHUPULLY ABDUL KADER, KURIPPILAKODE, KODANAD. 3. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ALWAYE. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB(SR) FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.1861 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th 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. The claim was for Rs.2 lakhs. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.48,848/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. 2. The claimant is a dealer in marbles allegedly. Nothing was produced to show the monthly income earned by him. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, reckoned Rs.1,500/- per mensem as the monthly earnings. There was injury to the brain as evidenced by the medical records including the C.T Scan report. He was an inpatient for a period of 16 days. The injury suffered had allegedly disabled the appellant. Epilepsy and impotency are the consequences which the injuries had left behind. The Certificate issued by the doctor - the doctor has not been examined, shows that there are permanent disabilities affecting his day to day life to a moderate degree. His sense of M.A.C.A. No.1861 of 2006 2 smell is lost. He suffers anosmia, it is reported and it is evident from Exts.A6 and A8. 3. Called upon to explain the specific challenge which the appellant/claimant wants to raise, the learned counsel first of all contends that reckoning the monthly income at Rs.1,500/- is not justified. In the absence of better evidence, we are not persuaded to interfere with that conclusion of the Tribunal. The counsel then contends that award of only one month's income as loss of earning is also unjustified. We agree with the counsel. We are satisfied, considering the period of hospitalisation, the nature of injuries suffered and the consequences of the injuries, that earnings for 3 months must have been lost. The claimant is therefore entitled for a further amount of Rs.3,000/- (4,500 minus 1,500) under this head. 4. The counsel submits that the quantum of compensation awarded for pain and suffering Rs.3,000/- is not justified and is too low. Considering the injuries suffered, period of treatment etc., we are inclined to agree with the counsel and we hold that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.4,500/- (7,500 minus 3,000). 5. There is nothing to show that the appellant had suffered reduction in earning capacity as a consequence of the M.A.C.A. No.1861 of 2006 3 accident. Of course there are indications to suggest that the injury to the brain suffered by him had left behind permanent physical disabilities. Though the medical officer has not been examined, there are convincing indications to suggest that the appellant suffered anosmia - loss of smell, epilepsy and impotency. Though the extent of such disability had not been satisfactorily established by examining an expert, the conclusion appears to be easy that he has suffered disabilities on these aspects. Employing multiplier-multiplicand method the Tribunal had arrived at Rs.18,360/- as compensation for reduction in earning capacity and Rs.3,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities. In all, thus an amount of Rs.21,360/- has been awarded as compensation. 6. We have already noted that the appellant is not proved to have suffered any reduction in earning capacity as such. But we do note that the accident had left behind permanent physical disabilities which must have inevitably caused impairment in the quality of enjoyment of life which the appellant can aspire. He is shown to be aged 34 years at the time of the accident. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that even in the absence of better material which can help us to precisely quantify the loss under this head, awarding a total M.A.C.A. No.1861 of 2006 4 amount of Rs.35,000/- under this head for disability suffered would be absolutely justified (ie. a further amount of Rs.13,640/-). 7. The learned counsel submits that interest has been awarded only @ Rs.6% per annum from the date of the petition. This is insufficient. Interest must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum, submits the learned counsel with the help of binding precedents. We are satisfied that this challenge can be accepted. 8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.21,140/- (ie. 3,000 + 4,500 + 13,640) (Rupees Twenty one thousand one hundred and forty only). The appellant will also be entitled for interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the entire amount from the date of the petition and cost as awarded by the Tribunal. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/-