IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 287 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.2303/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- P.M. HASHIM, S/O. MUHAMMADALI, PUTHAMPURAKKAL HOUSE, FORT KOCHI P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.T.V.NEEMA SMT.P.C.GEEVA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MUJEEB RAHMAN, H.NO.5/46A, CHAKKARAIDUKKU JUNCTION, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-2. 2. ANTONY M. PAPPY, EDAMURIYIL HOUSE, EZHUPUNNA, CHERTHALA. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8/03/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY 1PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.287 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered in a motor accident which took place on 23/5/97. He claimed an amount of Rs.2.31 lakhs as compensation. He was a collie aged 35 years on the date of the accident. He claimed his monthly income to be Rs.4,500/-. He had suffered trochanteric fracture of the left femur. He was an inpatient for a period of 17 days. Hip screw placement was resorted. He had suffered disability. Three Doctors in the General Hospital, Ernakulam, examined him and certified the physical disability to be 15%. In detail the nature of the disability suffered is enumerated in the certificate. M.A.C.A. No.287 of 2006 -: 2 :- 2. Before the Tribunal the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and his wife as P.W.2. The first respondent was examined as R.W.1. Ext.C1 medical record was also produced. 3. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances, proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of an amount of Rs.59,250/- as per the details given below along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and costs: 1. Transport to hospital - Rs.500/- 2. Extra nourishment - Rs.500/- 3. Bystander’s expenses - Rs.500/- 4. Damage to clothing - Rs.250/- 5. Medical bills - Rs.11,000/- 6. Loss of earnings (Rs.1,500/- x 3) - Rs.4,500/- 7. Pain and suffering - Rs.10,000/- 9. Loss of amenities - Rs.5,000/- 10. Loss of earning capacity (Rs.1,500/- x 12 x 15 x 10/100) - Rs.27,000/- ---------------- Total - Rs.59,250/- ======= 4. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned M.A.C.A. No.287 of 2006 -: 3 :- award. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant advances various contentions. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant, first of all, contends that the multiplicand reckoned at Rs.1,500/- against Rs.4,500/- claimed is not justified. The appellant is shown to be an unskilled coolie worker. The accident took place in 1997. We feel that the Tribunal has not committed any error warranting appellate interference in reckoning Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the Tribunal erred grossly in unjustifiably reducing the percentage of physical disability from 15% to 10%. A three member Medical Board had examined the appellant and had certified the disability to be 15%. At any rate, considering the nature of the employment of the appellant as an unskilled collie, the reduction in earning capacity suffered, even assuming that the percentage of physical disability can be reduced from 15% marginally, could not have been further reduced from 15%, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. We have gone through the disability certificate. We M.A.C.A. No.287 of 2006 -: 4 :- have borne in mind the nature of the work of the appellant. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that 15% can safely be reckoned as reduction in earning capacity consequent to the physical disability suffered. 8. The learned counsel then contends that the multiplier has been reckoned incorrectly at 15. Even reckoning the appellant as a person belonging to the age group of 35 to 40 years and not 30 to 35 years, the multiplier must be reckoned at 16 and not 15, contends the counsel. Compelling material to decide whether the appellant must be included in the age group of 30 to 35 years or 35 to 40 years is not made available. In these circumstances, we accept that the appellant can be reckoned only as belonging to the age group of 35 to 40 years. Even then he is entitled to get 16 reckoned as the multiplicand to ascertain the quantum of compensation for loss of earning capacity. The appellant would consequently be entitled to enhanced amount as compensation under this head. 9. The appellant is shown to be aged about 35 years. He will have to endure the disability for a further period of 3 ½ decades going by the longevity of the average Indian. The compensation for loss of amenities awarded is only Rs.5,000/-. M.A.C.A. No.287 of 2006 -: 5 :- We feel that higher amount of compensation deserves to be awarded under that head. 10. There was hospitalisation for a period of 17 days. Serious fracture of the femur was suffered. The Tribunal had awarded only an amount of Rs.1,500/- as compensation under the three heads of transport to hospital, extra nourishment and bystander’s expenses. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.200/- per day i.e., Rs.3,400/- deserves to be awarded under this common head. 11. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the following further amount as compensation in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal: 1. Compensation for transport to hospital, extra nourishment and bystander’s expenses – (17 x 200 minus Rs.1,500/-) - Rs.1,900/- 2. Loss of earning capacity (Rs.1,500/- x 12 x 16 x15/100 i.e, Rs.43,200/- minus Rs.27,000/-) - Rs.16,200/- 3. Loss of amenities (Rs,.12,000/- minus Rs.5,000/-) - Rs.7,000/- ----------------- Total - Rs,25,100/- ======= M.A.C.A. No.287 of 2006 -: 6 :- 12. We further direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate directed by the Tribunal from the date of the petition to the date of payment. 12. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. R. BASANT (Judge) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) Nan/ M.A.C.A. No.287 of 2006 -: 7 :-