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. 378 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.2394/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ THANKA,AGED 55 YEARS,W/O.MANIYAN, PUTHANVEEDU CHIRA, MANJAPRA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT:C/O.KUNJAYI,CHEPAYIL PUTHANVEETTIL P.O.ELANADU, PAZHAYANNOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. ABDUL SHAHIM, 25/343,ACM ABOOBACKER ROAD NOORANI P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SYED SHAFI MOHAMMED, S/O.SYED GULAM MUHAMMED P.NO.408,PUTHUPPALLY THERUVU, P.O.PUTHUNAGARAM. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., TSM SOBHA COMPLEX, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY // 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. 378 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. She claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by her in a motor accident which took place on 24.12.2000. She had suffered multiple fracture and was an inpatient from 24.12.2000 to 8.1.2001 (16 days in all). She had undergone procedures at the hospital. The appellant was allegedly employed as a coolie and was allegedly earning an income of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. The disability suffered by her was sought to be proved by Ext.A9 disability certificate which shows that she suffered 15% disability. The author of Ext.A9 was not examined before the Tribunal. Exts.A1 to A10 series were marked. 2. The Tribunal considered the claim of the appellant on merits and proceeded to direct payment of an amount of Rs.1,01,420/- as per the details given in paragraph 9 of the impugned award. Interest was awarded at the rate of 7% per annum from 28.9.2001 till the date of payment. 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is her grievance? Called upon to explain the precise nature of the M.A.C.A. NO.378/2009 2 challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant first of all contents that the reckoning of the monthly income at Rs.1,500/- is totally unjustified. The appellant, a woman aged about 50 years claims to be a coolie. In the absence of better evidence, only her assertions in the petition are available in support of this plea. The Tribunal evidently took note of the presumption of prudence that from 1994 even for a non earning person, the income can be reckoned notionally at Rs.1,250/- per month. Accordingly, income was reckoned at Rs.1,500/- per month. We are not satisfied that the view taken by the Tribunal is in any way erroneous to warrant appellate interference. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant then contends that the Tribunal erred in accepting only 8% as the percentage of physical disability suffered by the appellant. Ext.A9 must have been accepted in toto and the conclusion must have been reached that the appellant suffered only 8% physical disability, contends counsel. The Tribunal has considered this aspect. Ext.A9 certificate has not been proved by examining its author. Taking all the relevant circumstances, even in the absence of better evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the whole body disability can be assessed at 8%. We have been taken through Ext.A9 certificate and we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in not M.A.C.A. NO.378/2009 3 swallowing the contents of Ext.A9 which has not been proved by examining its author. The percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal does not, in the circumstances, warrant any interference. 5. We do, however, note that for a person aged between 50 and 55 years, the multiplier applicable as per the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act is 11. The Tribunal indulgently adopted 13 as the multiplier to arrive at the compensation for physical disability. It is further seen that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal as compensation for loss of amenities and Rs.5,000/- towards shortened expectancy in life. In addition to the above, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was awarded under the head pain and suffering. Interest has been awarded at 7% per annum as noticed earlier. 6. We are, in the circumstances, of the opinion that the impugned award suffers from no such error warranting appellate interference. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.378/2009 4 R. BASANT & & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.378/2009 JUDGMENT 17th February, 2009 M.A.C.A. NO.378/2009 5