IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1889 of 2005()
1. ABDUL GAFOOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KISHORE, S/O.N.K.NADARAJAN KISHORE,
... Respondent
2. N.NADARAJAN, KOCHUVEEDU,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :12/02/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.1889 of 2005
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
R.BASANT, J.
Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He
claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a
motor accident. An amount of Rs.6 lakhs was claimed by the
complainant. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of
Rs.1,54,140/- along with interest and cost. The appellant claims
to be aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded.
2. The appellant is alleged to be a person aged 24 years
at the time of the accident. He was allegedly working as a
workshop mechanic. His income was asserted to be Rs.15,000/-
per month. He was an inpatient for a period of 14 days and was
treated at 2 hospitals. He had suffered multiple fractures –
fracture of both bones of the right leg – segmental open
comminuted fracture patella right, fracture of the zygomatic
complex right and fracture of right temporal bone with facial
nerve palsy. He underwent procedures at the hospital. Even
after discharge, he continued treatment as an outpatient. He
was reviewed at the hospital till October, 2003, the accident
having taken place on 23.06.2002. He had suffered permanent
M.A.C.A.No.1889 of 2005 2
physical disability to the extent of 19% as ascertained in Ext.A6
disability certificate.
3. The claimant tendered evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to
A11 were marked. No other evidence was adduced in the case.
The Tribunal after adverting to the evidence adduced, quantified
the compensation payable at Rs.1,54,140/-. The learned counsel
for the appellant was requested to explain the specific challenge
which he wants to raise against the heads of compensation
awarded.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant first of all
contends that though it was asserted by the appellant on oath
that the he was earning an income of Rs.15,000/- and there was
no serious grounds to doubt or suspect that version, the Tribunal
had accepted only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income of the
appellant. This is incorrect. Taking a realistic view of the
circumstances, a higher amount must have been fixed as the
monthly earnings taking into account the age of the claimant as
also his employment as a workshop mechanic. The counsel
points out that even from 1994 the law enables the Tribunals to
presume that an amount of Rs.1,250/- must have been earned by
a person even if he is a non earning person. In these
M.A.C.A.No.1889 of 2005 3
circumstances the counsel contends that the monthly income
reckoned must definitely be raised upward.
5. We take note of all the relevant circumstances. We
are satisfied that it would be absolutely reasonable to reckon the
monthly income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.2,000/- per
mensem. The loss of earnings awarded by the Tribunal for 6
months must hence be reckoned as Rs.12,000/- instead of
Rs.9,000/- awarded. The appellant is entitled to a further
amount of Rs.3,000/- under this head.
6. The counsel then contends that the quantum of
compensation for reduction earning capacity consequent to
disability has not been assessed correctly. 19% is the physical
disability assessed under Ext.A6. The Tribunal accepted the
same as the reduction earning capacity also. The
appellant/claimant is shown to be aged 24 years and the Tribunal
accepted the highest multiplier admissible for the relevant age
under the second schedule – 17, to ascertain the quantum of
compensation. We are not, in these circumstances, satisfied that
there is any defect in the computation of compensation under
this head. The monthly earnings can be reckoned as Rs.2,000/-
as already held. The appellant will consequently be entitled for a
M.A.C.A.No.1889 of 2005 4
further amount of Rs.19,380/- [ie. 2,000 X 12 X 17 X 19/100
minus 1,500 X 12 X 17 X 19/100].
7. The counsel then contends that considering the
nature of the injuries – multiple fractures suffered and the fact
that the appellant was an inpatient for 14 days and had to
continue his treatment for a long period of time, the quantum of
compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is
too low. Rs.10,000/- is not a just and fair compensation for the
pain and suffering endured by the appellant, submits the learned
counsel. We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can in
the circumstances of the case be awarded to the appellant
considering the nature of the details, injury, treatment
procedures and the follow up treatment taken as revealed from
the discharge summary-Ext.A10. The appellant thus becomes
entitled for a further amount of Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain
and suffering.
8. The counsel then urges that the quantum of
compensation awarded for loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- is also
not adequate. 19% physical disability has been suffered and the
appellant aged about 24 years will have to live with such
disability suffering the impairment/reduction in the quality of
enjoyment of life for the rest of his life. The amount of
M.A.C.A.No.1889 of 2005 5
Rs.10,000/- awarded under this head is inadequate, contends
counsel. We find merit in that contention. We are satisfied that
an amount of Rs.20,000/- in all, ie. Rs.10,000/- more can be
awarded under this head.
9. We are not persuaded to agree that the amounts fixed
under the other heads deserve any modification.
10. The counsel finally submits that the award of interest
@ 6% per annum is too inadequate and unrealistic. The interest
must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per annum, argues the
counsel. We agree with the learned counsel on that aspect.
11. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that
the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.37,380/-
[3,000+19,380+5000+10,000] (Rupees Thirty seven thousand
three hundred and eighty only) in addition to the amounts
already awarded by the Tribunal. He will also be entitled for
interest on the total amount @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
the petition. Cost as directed by the Tribunal shall also be paid.
12. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON)
rtr/-