IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 203 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.801/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONER GIJO, S/O. GEORGE, AGED 27 YEARS, VADAKARA, CHAMAKKALA P.O., CHAMAKKALA KARA, KOTHANALOOR VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT PEEDIYECKAL, KOZHA KARA, KURAVILANGADU, KOZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1. ABILASH N., NARAYANA KURUPPU, MANNURETTUVADAKKETHIL, MANGUZHY, THATTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. K.L.RIYAS A., PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR. ADDL.R4 ARUN, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SREENILAYAM, PRUBULICKAL KARA, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MANNANAM NAGAR, PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. ADDL.R5 SUNIL A., S/O. ACHUTHAKURUPPU, KRISHNAMANDIRAM, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, PARANTHAL P.O., PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADDL.R6 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, KAYAMKULAM. ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO.203 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident that occurred on 21.5.2003. He was allegedly employed as parotta maker and was drawing an income of Rs.5,500/- per mensem. The accident had resulted in multiple injuries including maxillary fracture. He was an inpatient for a period of 11 days in two spells. He had allegedly suffered permanent physical disability to the extent of 9%. 2. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,03,750/- as per the details shown in the M.A.C.A. NO.203/2008 2 schedule in paragraph 17 of the impugned award which we extract below: Part I Rs. i. Medical expenses 65,000/- ii. Bystander expenses 3,000/- iii. Loss of earnings(2000x3) 6,000/- iv. Extra nourishment 500/- v. Damage to clothing 250/- vi. Transport to Hospital 1,000/- Part II vii. Pain and suffering 18,000/- viii. Loss of amenities 10,000/- -------------- Total 1,03,750/- -------------- 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on three specific grounds. Learned counsel, first of all, contends that the income of the appellant was reckoned at Rs.2,000/- per mensem only when the appellant had produced Ext.A10 employment certificate issued by his employer which shows M.A.C.A. NO.203/2008 3 that the monthly income of the appellant was Rs.5,500/-. Secondly, learned counsel submits that compensation for disability has not been calculated on the multiplier-multiplicand method and no compensation has been awarded towards reduction in earning capacity. Thirdly and lastly, counsel contends that in any view of the matter, the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding only Rs.10,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities. The amount is too meagre, unjust and unreasonable, argues counsel. 4. We have considered all the relevant inputs. Even though Ext.A10 employment certificate was produced by the appellant, the same was not strictly proved. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, reckoned the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.2,000/- and assumed that even though the period of hospitalisation was 11 days in two spells, the appellant must have suffered loss of income for a period of three months. We are satisfied, from the material available, that Rs.3,000/- can be reckoned as the monthly income of the appellant. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to an additional amount of Rs.3,000/- (3x3000 minus 6000) under the head loss of earnings. We do not find any merit in the contention that there has been reduction in the earning capacity and that the multiplier-multiplicand method has to be pressed into service to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable for reduction in earning M.A.C.A. NO.203/2008 4 capacity. In the instant case, the nature of the alleged physical disability is described in Ext.A13 disability certificate. We extract the same below: i. Multiple scars over forehead, eyelids, nose and chin and cheek. ii. Depression of nasal bridge and deviation and obstruction . iii. Recurrent rhinitis, sinusitis and headache. iv. Excessive watering of eyes. v. Numbness over the infraorbital region of face both sides. vi. Partial difficulty to open the mouth and difficulty to chew hard food. vii. Fracture and loss of crown of 71 12 has resulted in disfigurement and speech difficulty and required displacement with fixed prosthesis to restore appearance and speech. viii. Pain Temporo-Mandibular joint region on both sides. Considering all these he can be assessed to have a permanent disability of 9% (nine percent). We do not find that these alleged incidents of physical disability are likely to result in any reduction in earning capacity. The Tribunal, according to us, committed no error in not granting any amount under the head reduction in earning capacity. The alleged physical disability described above, even when the same has been accepted by the Tribunal, cannot M.A.C.A. NO.203/2008 5 persuade the Court to come to the conclusion that there has been reduction in earning capacity. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard does not warrant any appellate interference. 5. We do note that the appellant is a person aged 24 years. Considering the longevity of an average Indian citizen, it is reasonable to assume that the appellant will have to live with the disability described above for a period of five decades. Only an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for loss of amenities. We note that an amount of Rs.18,000/- has been awarded for pain and suffering. Even though the period of hospitalisation was 11 days, the injury suffered was maxillary fracture and other external injuries. However, taking into account all these relevant circumstances, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded for loss of amenities. We are not satisfied that the amount awarded under any other head deserves or requires appellate interference. 6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.13,000/- in addition to the amount already awarded, as per the details shown below: M.A.C.A. NO.203/2008 6 i. Loss of income :Rs. 3,000/- :(3x3000 minus 6000) ii. Loss of amenities :Rs.10,000/- :(20,000 minus 10,000) ----------------------------- Total :Rs.13,000/- ----------------------------- Needless to say that the entire amount of compensation shall bear interest at the rate directed by the Tribunal from the date of the petition. 7. This appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.203/2008 7 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.203/2008 JUDGMENT 11th March, 2009 M.A.C.A. NO.203/2008 8