IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 845 of 2006()
1. MOHAMMED AHSRAF, S/O. A.R. MOHAMMED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANEESH ANDREWS @ ANEESH,
... Respondent
2. AJITH BOSE, ARATTUKULAM,
3. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
For Respondent :SRI.ANTONY M. AMBAT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :09/02/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.845 of 2006
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
R.BASANT, J.
The appellant herein was the claimant before the court
below. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered
by him in a motor accident. The claim was for an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/-. He was already a polio afflicted person. He was
employed as the Secretary of a Grama Panchayat. It is submitted
that polio has resulted in disability of 55% already before the
accident was suffered. He was aged about 36 years on the date
of the accident. He suffered multiple fractures. The accident
obliged him to remain in the hospital as in-patient for a period
exceeding 3= months. By-standers had to be engaged from the
Red-Cross to attend on him. Before the Tribunal, PWs 1 to 3
were examined and Exts.A1 to A22 were marked. The report of
the medical board was secured by the Tribunal and that shows
that the appellant had suffered permanent partial disability to
the tune of 14% as a result of the injury suffered in the accident,
in addition to what he had already suffered as a result of the
polio. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.2,01,166/-.
The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded.
M.A.C.A. No.845 of 2006 2
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Detailed
arguments have been advanced. The learned counsel for the
appellant assails the impugned award on the following specific
grounds:
i) The quantum of compensation awarded under the
head of loss of earnings is totally insufficient.
ii) No compensation has been awarded for extra
nourishment, damage to clothings etc.
iii) At any rate, the quantum of compensation awarded for
the physical disability suffered is not sufficient and satisfactory.
3. We have rendered our anxious consideration to the
challenge raised in these specific grounds. There is evidence to
show that for a period of about 2 years, the appellant/claimant
could not attend to his work. He was of course granted leave;
but the total reduction in emoluments actually received is
Rs.31,279/- going by Ext.A19. The learned counsel submits that
the Tribunal had not taken into account the fact that the
appellant had lost his leave which he could otherwise have made
use of for other purpose. We take note of all these
circumstances and we are of the opinion that the award of an
amount of Rs.45,000/- under the head of loss of earning (loss of
leave) can safely be awarded.
M.A.C.A. No.845 of 2006 3
4. For the loss suffered for extra nourishment, damage
to clothings etc., no amount has been awarded and we are
persuaded to feel that an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded
under this head considering the state of health of the appellant
and also the period of treatment.
5. The main thrust of the contention is that adequate
compensation has not been awarded under the head of disability
suffered. Though Ext.C1 report obtained by the Tribunal from
the Medical Board shows that 14% disability has been suffered
by the appellant, already a disabled person, on account of the
injuries suffered, the Tribunal reckoned the percentage of
physical disability at 10% and we are unable to find satisfactory
reasons to justify such reduction. It cannot be lost sight of that
the assessment of disability consequent to injury suffered in the
accident is made by a Medical Board to which the Tribunal had
referred the appellant. In these circumstances we find it safe to
accept the report of the Medical Board that 14% physical
disability has been suffered by the appellant as a result of the
injury suffered.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellant is continuing in
employment and there is no actual reduction in the monthly pay
packet on account of the disability suffered. The Tribunal
reckoned Rs.2,500/- as the monthly income and computed the
M.A.C.A. No.845 of 2006 4
compensation assuming that 10% disability has been suffered.
Inasmuch as there is no reduction in income now, this Court will
have to take note of the fact that with 14% disability suffered, to
perform the same work as he was doing earlier, extra strain on
the part of th appellant is called for. That is because of the
accident and certainly he is entitled to be compensated for such
extra strain which he will have to put in to earn the same salary.
The post retirement employment prospects of the appellant will
also be necessarily impaired because of the disability suffered.
That dimension of the loss will also have to be borne in mind.
The disability suffered has reflections not only on the income
earned from time to time, it has a reflection on the quality of life
that the injured/victim can aspire to live after the accident. The
Tribunal did take that into reckoning and awarded an amount of
Rs.20,000/- under head of loss of amenities. Totally an amount
of Rs.62,000/- alone was awarded. The learned counsel for the
appellant submits that this amount fixed is not fair and just. The
fact that the appellant was already disabled and the disability
suffered as a result of the accident has brought further misery to
him in the quality of enjoyment of his life may be taken into
account, contends the counsel. Even though there is a
contention that subsequently he is obliged to take leave
frequently, there is no specific material to come to a positive
M.A.C.A. No.845 of 2006 5
conclusion on that aspect. We are, in these circumstances,
satisfied that resort to the multiplier-multiplicand method may
not be proper, effective or just in the circumstances. We are
satisfied that a global amount can be awarded for the permanent
disability suffered taking into account the extra strain which the
appellant will have to put in to perform the same amount of work
which he was doing earlier without reduction in the monthly pay
packet, the impairment of the post retirement employment
prospects as also the reflection of the disability suffered on the
quality of enjoyment of live which the appellant can aspire after
the accident and the consequent disability. After having
rendered our anxious consideration to these aspects, we are
satisfied that an award of Rs.1,10,000/- as a global amount can
be awarded for the reflection of the permanent disability suffered
on the above aspect shall be clear and just.
7. There is a contention that the interest awarded is not
adequate. Only 6% has been awarded as interest. At least 7.5%
must have been awarded, it is contended. We accept the same.
8. We are not satisfied that the amounts awarded under
any other head deserve modification.
9. In the result:
a) This appeal is allowed in part;
M.A.C.A. No.845 of 2006 6
b) The impugned award is modified and the appellant
shall be paid the following further amounts (total Rs.68,000/-):
i) Loss of earnings - Rs.15,000/- more
ii) Extra nourishment - Rs.5,000/- more
iii) The loss suffered on
account of physical
disability - Rs.48,000/- more.
c) The rate of interest is modified and it is directed that
the interest shall be payable @ 7.5% per annum instead 6% per
annum on the total amount.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON)
rtr/-