IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 749 of 2005()
1. ABRAHAM, S/O. JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAJESH, S/O. THANKAPPAN,
... Respondent
2. MRS.SEENA DAVIS, MANJOORAN HOUSE,
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.DENY JOSEPH
For Respondent :SRI.S.MAMMU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :19/02/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT &
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
M.A.C.A.No.749 of 2005
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February 2009
J U D G M E N T
BASANT,J
The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us.
He suffered personal injuries in a motor accident which took
place on 09/02/2001. He was allegedly employed as a sales
executive getting an income of Rs.10,000/- per mensum . He
suffered displaced fracture of the coccyx. He was an in-patient
for a period of four days. He had allegedly suffered permanent
physical disability. A medical board which examined him issued
Ext.A5 disability certificate to show that he was suffering
physical disability to the tune of 15%. “Pain tip of the back, back
pain, inability to sit due to pain, inability to lie flat due to low
back pain, inability to squat and climb stairs” is the alleged
disability. Tenderness at the sacral area and tip of the coccyx
were also found. Spinal movement was restricted by 60%.
These are reported in Ext.A6 disability certificate.
2. The claimant examined himself as PW1 and his
employer as PW2. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. No doctor was
M.A.C.A.No.749/05 2
examined to prove Ext.A6.
3. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the
relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the appellant is
entitled for an amount of Rs.55,500/- as compensation as per the
details shown below:
1. Transport to hospital Rs.500/-
2. Loss of earnings Rs.9,000/-
(Rs.3,000 x 3)
3. Bystander's expenditure Rs.500/-
4. Extra nourishment Rs.500/-
5. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
6. Loss of earning capacity Rs.10,000/- (global)
7. Loss of amenities of life Rs.15,000/-
8. Future discomfort Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.55,500/-
Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.55,500/- as compensation.
4. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
award. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the
learned counsel for the appellant wants to mount against the
M.A.C.A.No.749/05 3
impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant submits
that loss of earning capacity has not been assessed correctly.
The multiplier-multiplicand method must have been employed.
The Tribunal has awarded only a global amount of Rs.10,000/-.
In these circumstances, the amount awarded under the head of
loss of earning capacity consequent to disability suffered
warrants interference, it is submitted. The appellant has a
further grievance that the multiplicand is not correctly reckoned.
Only an amount of Rs.3,000/- was reckoned as income. The same
is inadequate, it is contended.
5. The Tribunal took note of the evidence available about
the income of the appellant. We do note that initially it was
asserted that the appellant is a sales executive. In the disability
certificate he is described as an office worker. The salary
certificate showed that his income was only Rs.6,000/-. The
tribunal, in these circumstances, was not prepared to swallow
the materials placed before the court and drew a reasonable
inference of prudence that notwithstanding the inadequacy in
evidence, an amount of Rs.3,000/- per mensum can be reckoned
as monthly earnings. In the state of evidence and materials
M.A.C.A.No.749/05 4
available, we are not persuaded to agree that the said decision
warrants interference.
6. The multiplier-multiplicand method was not adopted
by the tribunal. But from the compensation awarded under the
head of loss of amenities, loss of earning capacity and loss of
discomfiture – a total amount of Rs.35,000/-, it appears to be
evident that the tribunal was satisfied that the appellant has
suffered physical disability as a result of the accident. The
problem was one of not correctly quantifying the percentage of
such physical disability. The tribunal must have taken note of
the nature of injuries including fracture of the coccyx as also the
details available in the disability certificate. Of course, the
appellant is to be blamed for not adducing better and authentic
evidence to prove the contents of the disability certificate to the
satisfaction of the court. But all the same, we are not persuaded
to agree that this is a fit case where the Tribunal must have
come to a reasonable conclusion about the inevitable and
irreducible percentage of physical disability and consequent
reduction in earning capapcity. In the circumstances of the case,
we are persuaded to agree that such disability on the basis of
M.A.C.A.No.749/05 5
Ext.A5 as also the other details can safely be fixed at 8%.
Consequently, the appellant must be held to be entitled for a
total amount of Rs.37,440/- (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 13 x 8/100).
Deducting an amount of Rs.10,000/- which has already been
awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity, the
appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.27,440/-.
The challenge in this appeal succeeds to the above extent only.
7. In the result,
a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part.
b) It is found that the appellant is entitled to a further
amount of Rs.27,440/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand four
hundred and forty only) in addition to the amounts already
awarded by the Tribunal. Interest shall be payable on the entire
amount at the rates already directed by the tribunal from the
date of the petition.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jsr
M.A.C.A.No.749/05 6
M.A.C.A.No.749/05 7
R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
06/02/2009