IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1583 of 2006() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1831/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- JOSEPH, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 67 YEARS, VALLANATTU HOUSE, M.V.RAMAN ROAD, KUMBALANGI, ERNAKULAM. (PETITIONER IN M.A.C.T.). BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE, KATTIPARAMBU HOUSE, KUMBALANGI, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.V.THAMPY, KOCHUPAZHAMPALLIL HOUSE, AROOR P.O., ALAPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. 4. VINAYAKAN, MANIVELIPARAMBU HOUSE, THEKKUMURI, EDAKOCHI. 5. MRS.OMANA SETHU, ERAVYAKADU HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-6. 6. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-6. (RESPONDENTS IN M.A.C.T). ADV. SRI.SAJAN MANNALI FOR R2 SRI.M.P.JAYAKUMAR FOR R2 SMT.K.INDU (POURNAMI) FOR R2 SMT.SANTHI K.PAI FOR R2 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1583 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)1831/01. The claimant, a 67 year old man sustained injuries in a road accident. It is seen that he had a fracture on the tibia and fibula with dislocation of the ankle. The treatment records would show that he was in Gowtham Hospital as an inpatient from 10.4.01 to 22.5.01(42 days) and again from 14.1.02 to 16.1.02 and as an inpatient in the Lourdes Hospital from 18.2.2002 to 25.2.2002. It is also seen that he was treated as an inpatient from 6.8.01 for three days. These things are very clear to the effect that he had undergone prolonged treatment for his ailment. It is also seen that he was treated as an inpatient in the Medical College Hospital for a period of eight days. The documents also reveal that he had a non- union of the fracture of the fibula and grafting has to be done and implant has to be removed. He had almost spent about M.A.C.A. 1583 OF 2006 -:2:- Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. Learned counsel also would contend that the Tribunal did not grant reasonable compensation for permanent disability as well for actual loss of earnings and towards bystander's and other expenses. It is seen that only an amount of Rs.500/- is granted for attendant expenses whereas he had been inpatient in different hospitals for a period of about 62 days. So at least an amount of Rs.3,000/- has to be awarded under that head and after deducting Rs.500/- already granted, the claimant is to be granted an additional amount of Rs.2,500/- under that head. So far as the permanent disability compensation, loss of amenities etc. are concerned, the principle is that a reasonable compensation has to be granted but one should not overlap over the other and there should not be double benefit. So, ordinarily, when permanent disability compensation is calculated a further sum at least of a nominal nature is granted towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Here the Tribunal did not consider him as a man earning and therefore awarded Rs.10,000/-for loss of M.A.C.A. 1583 OF 2006 -:3:- amenities and Rs.5,000/- for permanent disability. The learned counsel would submit that the first information statement itself would reveal that he was a coconut business man. It is true that he was aged 67 years. He may not be able to do heavy physical work at that age. But at least a notional income has to be taken in such cases. Therefore fixing the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and accepting the disability at 15% calculated by the Medical Board and applying a multiplier of 5, the disability compensation would come to Rs.12,250/- when such an amount is granted I feel the loss of amenities can be limited to Rs.7,000/-. The total amount granted by the Tribunal under these two heads is Rs.15,000/- whereas the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.19,250/-. Therefore the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,250/- under that head. At least loss of earnings for six months have to be granted and it would come to Rs.7,500/- for which the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3,000/-. So the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of M.A.C.A. 1583 OF 2006 -:4:- Rs.4,500/- under that head. Or in other words the additional compensation the claimant is entitled to will be Rs.11,250/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.11,250/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-