Subramanyan v. Antony, Jamol & The National Insurance Co. Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 MACA.No. 1549 of 2008() ----------------------OPMV.2936/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- SUBRAMANYAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN, PALLANGATTU MUGAL HOUSE, KANGARAPADY KARA, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.RAJAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. ANTONY, S/O. JOSEPH, VAZHAYIL VEMPOLLY HOUSE, PAZHANGANADU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.M.JAMOL, S/O. MOHAMMED, KALLOORKKADU VEEDU, NETOOR P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ALUVA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, URUMBATH BUILDING, PUMP JUNCTION, ALUVA - 683 101,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jj ## **R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.** ## **-----------------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.NO:1549 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th ] September, 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 2-11-1999. He had suffered multiple injuries including fracture shaft of the femur left and fracture scapula on the left. He was inpatient for 48 days in three spells. He had allegedly suffered permanent physical disability. The Tribunal referred the appellant to a Medical Board and the Medical Board assessed the disability to be 3%. Against a total claim of Rs.5 lakhs the Tribunal under the impugned award directed payment of only an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- as per the details given in paragraph 10 of the impugned award which we extract below:- |Head|Amount awarded| |---|---| |Transportation, hospitalisation,|| |attendant expenses, Extra nourishment|| |&damage to clothings|Rs.6000| |Medical expenses|Rs.85500| |Loss of earnings|Rs.12500| MACA 1549/2008 2 Pain and suffering Rs.25000 For discomforts & inconveniences Rs.15000 -----------------------Total Rs.144000 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance company. The challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits first of all that the monthly income of the 26 year old young claimant reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/- is grossly inadequate. At least Rs.3,000/- must have been reckoned as the monthly income even in the absence of any better and clinching evidence. We agree with the learned counsel. The inability of a manual worker to produce satisfactory evidence to prove his monthly income has to be viewed realistically by a Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel next contends that though the Tribunal had noted that the appellant was an inpatient for a period of 48 days the Tribunal had awarded only a composite amount of Rs.6000/- under the heads of transportation, extra nourishment, damage to clothing and bystander expenses. At MACA 1549/2008 3 the rate of Rs.100/- per day under each of the heads of extra nourishment and bystander expenses an amount of Rs.9600/- (48 x 200) must have been awarded contends counsel. For transportation and damage to clothing an amount of Rs.1000/each must have been awarded argues counsel. We agree with the counsel. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant then submits that though the disability was assessed by a medical board to be 3% the Tribunal surprisingly did not award any amount under the head of loss of earning power. This is grossly unsatisfactory and unacceptable contends the learned counsel for the appellant. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that the multiplier multiplicant method must have been pressed into service to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable for reduction of earning capacity following the disability suffered. In respect of a person like the appellant, a coolie the disability of 3% can safely be assumed to result in reduction of earning capacity to identical extent. Going by the dictum in **Sarla Verma (Smt) & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another {(2009) 6 SCC 121}** 17 is the multiplier to be adopted also. MACA 1549/2008 4 5. The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.26460/- as shown in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 1. Loss of earnings Rs.2500 (3000 x 5 – 12500) 2. Extra nourishment and bystander expenses Rs.3600(48x200=9600-6000) 3. Expenses for transportation Rs.1000 4. Damage to clothing and articles Rs.1000 5. Reduction in earning capacity Rs.18360 (3000x12x17x3/100) ---------------Total: Rs.26460 ======= 6. We are not satisfied that the amounts awarded under the other heads deserve modification/enhancement invoking our appellate jurisdiction. 7. In the result; a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.26460/- (Rupees twenty six thousand four hundred and sixty only) in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. MACA 1549/2008 5 c) We make it clear that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate and for the period as specified by the Tribunal in the impugned award. R. BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj MACA 1549/2008 6