Thressiamma @ Rani Mathew v. K.M.Kumbath, K.K.Aboo and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

## **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 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933** ## **MACA.No. 2143 of 2005()** **---------------------------------** **OPMV.498/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR** **....................** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV):** **-----------------------------------------------------** **THRESSIAMMA @ RANI MATHEW, W/O.LATE K.M.MATHEW, KANJIRATHUMKUNNIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM, NOW RESIDING AT MUTTATHIL HOUSE, PHILGIRI, CHERUKULAM P.O., KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):** **-------------------------------------------------------------** **1. K.M.KUMBATH, S/O.KOYA, KURINGATTICKAL MEETHAL, VELLEYAMKODU P.O.** **2. K.K.ABOO, S/O.MOIDEEN, KOOLIKANDI HOUSE, PERAMBRA P.O., KOZHIKODE.** **3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CALICUT BRANCH.** **ADV. SRI.M.S.PATTALI FOR R3 SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN FOR R3** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **R. BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.** **----------------------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A. No.2143 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd ] day of September, 2011** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **R. BASANT,J.** The claimant is the appellant. She, a 36 year old homemaker and who also allegedly ran a poultry farm suffered injuries in a motor accident, which took place on 08.03.2003. A couple along with their two minor children were traveling in their car. The claimant/appellant is the wife. The husband and one minor child were killed in the accident. The appellant/claimant and other minor child suffered injuries. She was an inpatient for 29 days. She had suffered multiple injuries. The injured were initially rushed to the local hospital from there, they were referred to a higher medical centre. She had suffered permanent disability, which was quantified to be 38%. The same was accepted by the Tribunal. Against a total claim of Rs.8,25,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.2,72,145/- as per the details given below: **M.A.C.A. No.2143 of 2005 2** |**_Sl.No._**|**_Head_**|**_Amount_**<br>**_awarded_**| |---|---|---| |1|Pain and sufferings|Rs.25,000/-| |2|Loss of amenities|Nil| |3|Medical expenses|Rs.1,28,705/-| |4|Transportation expenses|Rs. 2,000/-| |5|Loss of earnings(1500X2)|Rs. 3,000/-| |6|By stander expenses|Rs. 1,500/-| |7|Disability(1500X12X16X38/100)|Rs.1,09,440/-| |8|Future Medical expenses|Nil| |9|Extra Nourishment|Rs. 2,000/-| |10|Damages to clothings|Rs. 500/-| ||Total|Rs.2,72,145/-<br>= = = = = = = =| 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. The insurer has been made entirely liable under the impugned award to satisfy the award. The challenge is raised only on the ground that quantum of compensation awarded is inadequate. 3. Called upon to explain the challenge and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the Tribunal had erred grossly in reckoning only Rs.1,500/- as the **M.A.C.A. No.2143 of 2005 3** monthly income of the claimant. She was earning an income of Rs.3,000/- from the poultry farm run by her. In addition she was rendering services as a home maker/housewife. There was no better or specific evidence of her income. The Tribunal assumed only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income. This is grossly incorrect. At least Rs.3,000/- must has been reckoned as the monthly income. In support of this, learned counsel relies on clause 6 of the second schedule to the M.V.Act. He also relies on the decisions of Supreme Court in **Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others** ( **AIR 2001 SC 3218)** and **Laxmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another (2008** **ACJ 1488).** Even assuming that her employment and income from the poultry farm have not been established, we are satisfied that it would be absolutely safe to conclude that on 08.03.2003, the date of accident the worth of her services can be reckoned at Rs.3,000/- per month. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the Tribunal was grossly unrealistic in assuming that there would have been involuntary unemployment only for a period of two **M.A.C.A. No.2143 of 2005 4** months. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment as an inpatient, it must safely have been assumed by the Tribunal that there would have been involuntary inability to perform the ordinary chores for a period of three months. We accept that contention of the learned counsel. 5. Though the appellant was an inpatient for a period of 29 days and had continued treatment thereafter as an outpatient, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.3,500/(1500+2000) as compensation for bystander expenses and extra nourishment. The counsel prays and we accept that atleast an amount of Rs.100/- each under these heads should have been granted for the entire period of hospitalization. 38% has been certified to the disability. The Tribunal had accepted the same. 16 is the multiplier specified in the second schedule for persons of the age group 35 to 40 years. The Tribunal had evidently accepted the same. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that going by the dictum in **Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 1211],** 15 and not 16 can be accepted as the multiplier. Sarla Verma (supra)was **M.A.C.A. No.2143 of 2005 5** dealing with a specific case of compensation for death. Different multipliers can safely be accepted and the law is trite that different multipliers can be adopted when compensation for death and for permanent disablement is ascertained. In a case of permanent disablement the injured victim has to live with the disability till life ebbs out of him. Therefore, a higher multiplier taken in a case of permanent disablement does not certainly warrant appellate interference. For loss of amenities, notwithstanding the acceptance of 38% as the physical disability that resulted, no amount whatsoever has been awarded. In this context we cannot afford to omit to note that Rs.25,000/- has already been awarded under the head of pain and suffering. We are satisfied that further amount deserves to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities. Physical disability suffered has two fold reflections on a person's life. It reduces the earning capacity. It also impairs and reduces the quality of enjoyment of life. For that dimension of the loss including shortened expectation of life, a further amount is to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities in addition to the amount awarded under the head of **M.A.C.A. No.2143 of 2005 6** ## pain and suffering. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though bills for Rs.1,38,375/- were produced, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,28,705/- as compensation for medical expenses incurred. The Tribunal took note of the bills issued by the hospital where the appellant was admitted after initial treatment at the local hospital. In any case we note that actual amount covered by some bills alone has been awarded. We are satisfied that further amount deserves to be awarded under the head of medical expenses also. 7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.1,40,240/- as shown below in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Loss of earnings :Rs. 6,000.00 (3000X3=9,000 minus 3000) Extra nourishment and bystander expenses(29X200=5800 minus 3500) :Rs. 2,300.00 Medical and miscellaneous expenses :Rs. 7,500.00 ( Rs.7,500/-in addition to the amount already awarded) **M.A.C.A. No.2143 of 2005 7** Reduction in earning capacity :Rs.1,09,440.00 (3000X12X16X38/100 = 2,18,880 minus 1,09,440) Loss of amenities :Rs.15,000.00 (No amount awarded by the Tribunal - this is in addition to the amount of 25,000/- awarded under the head of pain and suffering). --------------------- Total Rs.1,40,240/= = = = = = = = 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that only 6% has been awarded as interest. This is inadequate, contends counsel. We agree. We are of the opinion that interest must have been awarded at the rate of 7.5% p.a. 9. In the result: ## a. This appeal is allowed in part. b. The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs. 1.40,240/-(Rupees one lakh forty thousand two hundred and forty only) as compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. **M.A.C.A. No.2143 of 2005 8** c. We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim to the date of payment/realisation. d. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. ## **R. BASANT, JUDGE** **M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE** **ln**