IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 302 of 2006()
1. B.JAGADEESH KUMAR, 27 YERARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUDHEER, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
... Respondent
2. MOHANDAS, S/O.SANKARAN,
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE,
4. A.RAMESH KUMAR,
5. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C
For Respondent :SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :17/02/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.302 of 2006
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us.
The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation
for personal injuries suffered in a motor accident. The appellant
was aged 27 years on the date of the accident. He suffered
fracture of both bones of right leg. He was a supervisor in a
private company and was employed at Bangalore. He underwent
treatment for 14 days. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked and the
doctor, who issued Ext.A12 disability certificate, was examined
as PW1.
2. The Tribunal taking into consideration all the relevant
inputs sailed to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for
an amount of Rs.92,910/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
and cost. Accordingly the impugned award was passed.
3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
award. Called upon to explain the precise nature of the
challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the
M.A.C.A. No.302 of 2006 2
impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant
challenges the impugned award on 2 specific grounds. The
learned counsel for the appellant contends that the monthly
income of the appellant has been reckoned by the Tribunal at
Rs.3,000/-. But more surprisingly when the loss of actual
earnings of 1 = months’ and loss of earning capacity consequent
to disability were considered, the Tribunal had reckoned only
Rs.3,000/- as the multiplicand unjustifiably reducing the monthly
income of Rs.3,000/- by one third. This is stated to be on account
of the fact that one third would be required for the personal
expenses of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant
contends that there is no rhyme or reason in reducing the
monthly income by one third when the question to be considered
is not the dependency of the dependents in the absence of the
injured/deceased. The appellant is very much alive. His
expenses will have to be met and in these circumstances the
reduction of one third of the monthly income on the ground that
the appellant will have to incur personal expenses is not justified
at all. We find the said contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant to be absolutely reasonable, fair and just. We are not
satisfied that the reduction of the monthly income by one third,
M.A.C.A. No.302 of 2006 3
when multiplicand was reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining
loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity, is justified.
4. Consequently the appellant will be entitled to a
further amount of Rs.1,500/- [4,500 minus 3,000] (Rupees One
thousand five hundred only) and Rs.15,120/- [45,360 (ie. 3000 X
12 X 18 X 7/100) minus 30,240] (Rupees Fifteen thousand one
hundred and twenty only)more under the heads of loss of
earnings and loss of earning capacity consequent to disability.
5. We are not satisfied against the challenge raised
against compensation awarded under the other heads. A total
amount of Rs.30,000/- has been awarded under the composite
head of pain and suffering and loss of amenities. In these
circumstances, we are satisfied that the permanent disability
suffered has been adequately compensated both under the heads
of loss of earning capacity and loss of amenities.
6. Interest is seen awarded only @ 6% per annum. The
learned counsel for the appellant submits that consistent with
the binding precedents interest must have been awarded at least
@ 7.5% per annum. We agree with the learned counsel for the
appellant.
M.A.C.A. No.302 of 2006 4
7. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that
the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.16,620/-
(Rupees Sixteen thousand six hundred and twenty only) as
compensation in addition to the amounts already awarded by the
Tribunal. There shall be a further direction that interest shall be
payable @ 7.5% per annum on the total amount from the date of
the petition along with cost as already awarded by the Tribunal.
8. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the
above extent.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR)
rtr/-