IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 602 of 2009(B) ---------------------- OPMV.31/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER ------------------------ SHIJO S/O. ANTONY, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, VALIYAKANDAM KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THOMMEN JOSEPH, KUNNUMMAYALIL HOUSE, KADAMAKUZHY POST, VALLAKKADAVU, KATTAPPANA. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.II, MUNDUKOTTACKAL CHAMBERS, KANJIKUZHY POST, KOTTAYAM. 3. JACOB @ SUNNY JOSEPH, KUNNUMMAYALIL HOUSE, VALLAKKADAVU KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS FOR R2 SMT.M.MEENA JOHN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.602 of 2009-B ***************************** Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 30.03.2004. He had suffered multiple injuries. He was an inpatient for a total period of 31 days in different spells. He had suffered permanent disability which was assessed by a Medical Board, to whom the appellant was referred to, as 18%. Ext.A9 is the report of the Medical Board. The appellant was examined as PW1. Against a total claim of Rs.2 lakhs, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.1,37,215/- as per the details given in para.12 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl.No. Heads of claim Amount awarded 1 Loss of earning Rs. 9,000.00 (3000 X 3 months) 2 Transportation expenses Rs. 1,500.00 3 Extra nourishment Rs. 2,000.00 4 Bye-stander expenses Rs. 3,000.00 5 Treatment expenses Rs. 28,275.00 6 Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000.00 M.A.C.A No.602 of 2009-B 2 Sl.No. Heads of claim Amount awarded 7 Disability(3000X12X17X12/100) Rs. 73,440.00 Total Rs.1,37,215.00 2. The insurance company has been made entirely liable. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. Challenge is raised against the impugned award only on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate. 3. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award firstly on the ground that the period of involuntary unemployment reckoned by the Tribunal as 3 months is inadequate. He was an inpatient for different spells. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the materials presently available do not justify the conclusion that there must have been actual involuntary unemployment for a period exceeding 3 months. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that though the report of the Medical Board shows that 18% disability has been suffered, the Tribunal had accepted only 12% as the disability. According to the Medical Board, the appellant had suffered a fracture and a re-fracture later on account of M.A.C.A No.602 of 2009-B 3 weight bearing/fall. The appellant had examined himself as PW1. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, was not justified in assuming that the entire extent of physical disability was not attributable to the injury suffered in the motor accident. We find merit in that contention. We are satisfied that the Tribunal should have accepted 18% as the disability. Compensation for reduction in earning capacity (described disability by the Tribunal in the table given above) therefore deserves to be re- worked. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that though physical disability suffered by the appellant is accepted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has omitted to award any amount under the head of loss of amenities. Physical disability suffered by a person has two fold reflections on his life. It reduces the earning capacity. It also impairs and reduces quality of enjoyment of life after the disability. For this dimension of the loss also, the appellant is certainly entitled to compensation. 6. It is pointed out that only 17 has been accepted as the multiplier whereas under the Second Schedule for persons of the age group of the appellant (20-25 years), 18 is the multiplier applicable. We agree. M.A.C.A No.602 of 2009-B 4 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.56,720/- as shown below in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. i) compensation for reduction in earning capacity : Rs.36,720.00 (3000X12X17X18/100 = 1,10,160 minus 73,440) ii) Compensation for loss of amenities : Rs.20,000.00 (no amount awarded by the Tribunal) ------------------- Total : Rs.56,720.00 ======== 7. We are not persuaded to interfere with the amount awarded under any other head. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that cost before the Tribunal has not been awarded as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K [2011(3) KLT 943]. We agree that the appellant is entitled for such cost. 9. In the result: a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part; b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of M.A.C.A No.602 of 2009-B 5 Rs.56,720/- (Rupees Fifty six thousand seven hundred and twenty only) in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award; c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as directed by the Tribunal; d) The appellant shall be entitled for the proportionate cost before the Tribunal as held in Jeena V. Satheesh Babu.K (supra). e) All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/