IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1297 of 2008()
1. SUMESH, S/O.MOHANAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RENSON, S/O.LAZER, MANJALY HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.N.MANOJ
For Respondent :SRI.JIJO PAUL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :21/01/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
*************************
M.A.C.A No.1297 of 2008
******************************
Dated this the 21st day of January 2010
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
Injured claimant is the appellant. He claims to be
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded for the loss
suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on
06.05.2002. He claims to be a goldsmith, aged about 20 years.
He was an inpatient for 12 days in a hospital. He had suffered
multiple injuries. His right knee was injured. Tendon injury was
suffered. According to him he has suffered permanent disability
as a result of the accident. He produced Ext.A8 disability
certificate to confirm that he has suffered permanent physical
disability to the tune of 13%. The author of Ext.A8 was not of
course examined. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of
all the relevant inputs proceeded to award an amount of
Rs.49,350/- as compensation as per the details given below.
i) Loss of earning
(2000 X 3) : Rs. 6,000/-
ii) Expenses for transportation : Rs. 500/-
iii) Expense for extra nourishment : Rs. 500/-
iv) Damages to clothing : Rs. 500/-
v) Expense for treatment : Rs.21,850/-
vi) Expense for bystander : Rs. 1,000/-
M.A.C.A No.1297 of 2008 2
vii) Compensation for pain and
suffering : Rs. 8,000/-
viii) Compensation for loss of
amenities : Rs. 6,000/-
ix) Compensation for discomfiture : Rs. 5,000/-
....................
Total : Rs.49,350/-
....................
2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
award. What is his grievance? Called upon to explain the nature
of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the
impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant raises
various grounds.
3. First of all it is contended that the monthly income of
the appellant reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,000/- per mensem
is too inadequate. Even the F.I statement shows that the
appellant is a goldsmith. Reasonable inferences about the
monthly income should have been drawn. Second schedule to
the Motor Vehicles Act, which permits drawal of a presumption
of prudence that even a non earning person can be assumed to
earn an income of Rs.1,250/- in 1994 must have been borne in
mind by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, at any rate,
reckoning the monthly earning at Rs.2,000/- is not correct,
argues the counsel. We find merit in that contention. The
M.A.C.A No.1297 of 2008 3
accident took place on 06.05.2002. We agree that it would safe
to assume that the monthly income of the appellant was
Rs.3,000/- at the relevant time. In the totality of circumstances,
that inference of prudence appears to be absolutely reasonable
to us.
4. The counsel then contends that the Tribunal has not
awarded any amount under the head of reduction in earning
capacity. The Tribunal did not accept or act upon Ext.A8
disability certificate. The learned counsel contends that even if
the Tribunal did not accept Ext.A8 as a gospel truth, it must have
been held to be sufficient to conclude that the appellant had
suffered some permanent physical disability. All the relevant
details have been given in Ext.A8. Ext.A8 is perfectly in tandem
with the other medical documents like Ext.A4 wound certificate,
Ext.A5 discharge certificate and Ext.A6 discharge summary. The
relevant details about the tendon injury suffered by the appellant
are narrated in Ext.A8. Complete rupture of right patellar tendon
is indicated. There was rupture of the right quadriceps tendon
also. If the Tribunal were not satisfied that Ext.A8 certificate can
be accepted, the Tribunal should in fairness have called upon the
appellant to adduce evidence to prove Ext.A8. Rejection and complete
disregard of Ext.A8 is at any rate unjustified, argues counsel.
M.A.C.A No.1297 of 2008 4
5. We find force in that contention. A careful perusal of
Ext.A8 definitely suggests that Ext.A8 which is in conformity
with the other medical documents produced should not have
been ignored altogether. The Tribunal should have call for
evidence to prove Ext.A8. If not, the tribunal should have
referred the appellant to a medical board or medical officer for
competent assessment of the extent of physical disability. We
are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the tribunal erred in
ignoring Ext.A8 altogether.
6. Even assuming that the data furnished in Ext.A8 about
the extent of permanent physical disability can be accepted, it
has got to be borne in mind that what the courts are concerned
while ascertaining loss of earning capacity is not strictly the
extent of physical disability; but the impact of such alleged
physical disability on the earning capacity of the claimant. So
reckoned, we take note of the details in Ext.A8, we take note of
the statement of the appellant even in Ext.A1 F.I.S that he is a
Goldsmith. We are satisfied that 6% can safely be reckoned as
the extent of reduction in earning capacity consequent to the
alleged disability indicated in Ext.A8. The multiplier-
multiplicand method has to be adopted to ascertain the quantum
of compensation payable under the head of reduction in earning
M.A.C.A No.1297 of 2008 5
capacity. The appellant is shown to be a person aged 20 years
on the date of the accident. The multiplier as per the second
schedule to the M.V.Act is 16. The same can be accepted.
7. Physical disability suffered by a person has two
pronged reflections on the life of an individual. In addition to
reduction in earning capacity it causes impairment in the quality
of life of the victim. Under heads 8 and 9 referred above, a total
amount of Rs.11,000/- has already been awarded by the tribunal
for loss of amenities and discomfiture and in these circumstances
we are satisfied that no further amount is liable to be awarded
under the head of loss of amenities.
8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that
the appellant is entitled to the following further amounts by way
of compensation in addition to the amounts awarded by the
tribunal.
1. Loss of earnings = Rs.3,000/-
(Rs.3,000 x 3 = Rs.9,000/-
minus Rs.6,000/-)
2. Reduction in earning
capacity = Rs.34,560/-
(Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 16 x 6/100)
Total = Rs.37,560/-
9. In the result,
a) This M.A.C.A is allowed in part.
M.A.C.A No.1297 of 2008 6
b) In addition to the amounts awarded by the tribunal,
the appellant is found entitled to a further amount of Rs.37,560/-
(Rupees thirty seven thousand five hundred and sixty only) as
per the details shown above.
c) Needless to say, the entire amount of compensation
shall carry interest from the date of the petition to the date of
payment at the rates awarded by the tribunal.
d) All other directions of the tribunal are upheld. The
tribunal shall issue fresh directions regarding deposit/release.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/-