Udayakumar v. Ponnamma Narayanan, Muhammed Haneef and The National Insurance Co. Ltd. (MACA No. 1888 of 2008; MACA No. 1885 of 2008)

## **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 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933** **MACA.No. 1888 of 2008()** **----------------------OPMV.356/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA** **....................** ## **APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER** **------------------------** **UDAYAKUMAR, S/O. DIVAKARAN, KANIYAMPARAMBIL, THONDANKULANGARA WARD, AVALLOOKUNNU.P.O, ALAPPUZHA.** **BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU** ## **RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS** **--------------------------** **1. PONNAMMA NARAYANAN, W/O. NARAYANAN, AJAYA MANDIRAM, KOOTHUPARAMBU, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA.** **2. MUHAMMED HANEEF, S/O. ISMAEL ABDUL RAHMAN, VRUSHKAVILASAM, THOPPIL VEETIL, VANDANAM MURI, VANDANAM.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., YMCA JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3** **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **ami/** ## **R. BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.** **-----------------------------------------------------------------** **M.A.C.A. No.1888 of 2008 ------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of October, 2011** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **R. BASANT,J** The claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident, which took place on 05.02.1999. He suffered multiple injuries including the fracture of right femur. He was an inpatient from 05.02.1999 to 30.03.1999. He was subsequently shown to have been admitted from 10.01.2000 to 01.02.2000. He is shown to have suffered disability of 10% as assessed by the medical board. He was aged 34 years. He claimed that he was an employee in a printing press earning a monthly income of Rs.3000/-. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned award proceeded to award, against a total claim of Rs.3,09,500/- only an amount of Rs.59,000/- as per the details given below: Pain and suffering :Rs.10,000/- Loss of earnings :Rs. 6,000/(1500X4) Loss of earning capacity : Rs.38,000/(global) Medical and miscellaneous expenses :Rs. 2,000/- ## **M.A.C.A. No.1885 of 2008 2** Expenses of bystander etc. :Rs.3,000/- -----------------------Total Rs. 59,000/============ 3. The insurer has been made entirely liable to satisfy the award. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award on the short ground that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. 4. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has not awarded just and reasonable compensation. First of all, it is contended that the monthly income of the appellant was reckoned by the Tribunal only at Rs.1,500/-. This is grossly inadequate, it is contended. Though no better evidence is produced before the Tribunal to show that the monthly income of the claimant/appellant, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.2,500/- can safely be reckoned as the monthly income. Considering the nature of injuries, we are satisfied that the injuries must have led to involuntary unemployment for a period of 6 months. ## **M.A.C.A. No.1885 of 2008 3** 5. It is then submitted that for pain and suffering only an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded. We are satisfied, considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment that a higher amount of compensation deserves to be awarded under the head of pain and suffering. 6. For disability, a total amount of Rs.38,000/- has been awarded, the Tribunal has not resorted to the multiplier multiplicand method. The claimant, we have already noted can be assumed to earn an income of Rs.2,500/- p.m. 10% disability has been suffered and it is easy to assume that identical must have been the reduction in earning capacity also. He was aged 30-35 years and going by the second schedule to the M.V. Act, 17 can safely be reckoned as the multiplier. The Tribunal has not computed the amount adopting the multiplier multiplicand method. We agree that the appellant is entitled to get compensation for loss of earning capacity by resorting to the multiplier multiplicand method. 7. Physical disability suffered by a person leaves behind two fold reflections on his life. It reduces the earning capacity. ## **M.A.C.A. No.1885 of 2008 4** It also impairs and reduces the quality of enjoyment of life, which the appellant can aspire to lead for the entire rest of his life. We are satisfied that an appropriate amount of compensation deserves to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities, taking into account all dimensions of the loss suffered by the 34 year old claimant on account of physical disability other than loss of earning capacity. 8. For medical expenses only an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded. At any rate, we are satisfied that the appellant has been hospitalized as an inpatient for a period of 53 days. Even though better evidence has not been produced, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded as compensation under this head. 9. For compensation for extra nourishment and bystander expenses, we are satisfied that an amount @ of Rs.100/- per day can be awarded under each head. For damage to clothing and articles, we are satisfied that an amount of Rs.1,000/- can be awarded as compensation. 10. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.58,600/- as ## **M.A.C.A. No.1885 of 2008 5** compensation in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal as shown below; Damage to clothing : Rs. 1,000/Medical expenses : Rs. 3,000/(5,000 minus 2,000) Miscellaneous Expenses : Rs. 7,600/Including bystander expenses and extra nourishment ie, 200X53 =10,600 minus 3,000) Loss of earnings :Rs. 9,000/(2500X6= 15000 minus 6000) Pain and suffering :Rs.10,000/(20,000 minus 10,000) Loss of earning capacity :Rs.13,000/(2500X12X17X10/100 = 51,000 minus 38,000) Loss of amenities :Rs.15,000/(No amount separately awarded by the Tribunal) ---------------------------Total Rs. 58,600/============ 11. We are not satisfied that the appellant deserves to be granted any further amount than what is stated above. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the interest has been awarded only @ 6% p.a. The counsel argues ## **M.A.C.A. No.1885 of 2008 6** and we agree that interest can be awarded @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim to the date of payment/ realisation. 13. We are further satisfied that the appellant is entitled to proportionate costs before the Tribunal on the entire amount of compensation as held in **Jeena v. Satheesh Babu(2011(3) KLT 943).** ## 14. In the result: - a. This appeal is allowed in part. - b. The appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.58,600/- (Rupees fifty eight thousand and six hundred only) in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. - c. We direct that the entire amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim to the date of payment/realisation. - d. We direct that proportionate costs before the Tribunal for the entire amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant as held in **Jeena** ## **v. Satheesh Babu(2011(3) KLT 943).** **M.A.C.A. No.1885 of 2008 7** e. All other directions of the Tribunal are upheld. ## **R. BASANT, JUDGE** ## **M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE** **ln**