IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 1322 of 2000()
1. MOOSA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.K. UMMER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.M.M.HUSAIN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :07/06/2007
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------
M.F.A.No.1322 OF 2000
-------------------------------------
Dated 7th June, 2007
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J
.
Appellant/petitioner met with a motor accident by
which he sustained serious injuries while he was travelling as
a pillion rider in a motor cycle driven by the fourth
respondent. The lorry driven by the first respondent owned by
the second respondent and insured by the third respondent hit
the vehicle and the accident occurred. He claimed a
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/=. The Tribunal found that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the first
respondent. Insurance company (R3) was directed to deposit
the amount. However, only Rs.24,950/= was awarded as
compensation. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in
this appeal. Hence, we are considering that aspect alone in
this appeal.
2. Appellant was aged 30 at the time of the
accident. According to him, he was a coolie. The accident
occurred on 29.12.1991. The Tribunal fixed only Rs.1,000/= as
monthly wages. He was an able bodied man maintaining a
family. When second schedule was framed in 1994, the notional
income of a non-earning person was fixed as Rs.1,250/=
MFA.1322/2000 2
(Rs.15,000/= per year). It is true that the accident
occurred on 29.12.1991. Appellant is not a non-earning
person, but, is an earning person. In the above
circumstances, we are of the opinion that at least
Rs.1,250/= should be fixed as monthly income. He was aged
30 at the time of the accident. It was repeatedly held by
the Apex Court that multiplier has to be fixed taking
guidance from the second schedule. A three member bench of
the Supreme Court in Smt.Supe Dei and others v.
M/s.National Insurance Company Ltd. and another (JT 2002
(Suppl.1) SC 451) held that the second schedule of the
Motor Vehicles Act is framed for the purpose of awarding
compensation under Section 163A, but, it serves as a
guideline for determination of compensation under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the victim of the
accident in that case was aged 32, considering the second
schedule, Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted 17 as the
multiplier. In United India Insurance Co Ltd. v. Patricia
Jean Mahajan and others (JT 2002 (5) SC 74), the Apex Court
held that, except in very rare cases, multiplier system
should not be deviated from. The other methods, which were
in vogue prior to the introduction of the multiplier
system, were held to be no more good system. It was
MFA.1322/2000 3
further held that normally the multiplier, as indicated in
the second schedule, should be applied. Though the second
schedule is found to be a safe guide for the purpose of
calculation of the amount of compensation, in special
circumstances, it can be varied. In that case, it was also
held that if the multiplicand is very high, a lesser
multiplier can be taken. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy.Director
General, Geological Survey of India and another ((2003) 3
SCC 148), it was held that structured formula mentioned in
the second schedule gives guidelines for determination of
the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act. Deviation from the structured formula
can be resorted to only in exceptional cases and ordinarily
the above multiplier system should be followed. If that be
so, 17 is the apt multiplier.
3. Now, we will come to the disabilities occurred
to the appellant due to the accident. He was treated as an
inpatient for 13 days in the Medical College Hospital,
Calicut. Subsequently also he has undergone treatment.
Disability certificate was issued by Dr.C.C.Suresh M.S.,
Department of Surgery, Medical College Hospital, Calicut
which was marked as Ext.A5. The above certificate reads as
MFA.1322/2000 4
follows:
“Certified that I have today
examined Sri.Moosa 30 years who was
under my treatment from 29.12.91 as IP
59313 following an alleged traffic
accident which occurred on 29.12.91
following which he was admitted at MCH
Calicut after reference from KPM
Hospital, Malappuram and he was having
Head Injury with CT proved communited
depressed fracture of Right frontal
base and was discharged on 6.1.92 with
an advice of long term Anticonvulsant
drugs. As he is now having recurrent
Headache and occasional epileptic fits
which can be due to the post traumatic
sequelae. So, I consider that the
above patient is having a permanent
disability of about fifteen percent.”
According to the doctor, appellant has 15% disability.
Appellant also has a case that due to the accident he
developed depressive mood and he was treated by
Dr.D.Sreekumar, Associate Professor of Psychiatry,
Government Health Centre, Calicut. Ext.A8 shows that he
has developed organic mood disorder. On the basis of the
certificates produced (Exts.A5 and A8), compensation was
not calculated on a scientific basis, but, only Rs.7,500/=
was granted as compensation for disability and loss of
earning power. Ext.A5 certificate shows that he is having
epilepsy due to the accident. There was head injury. The
MFA.1322/2000 5
doctor certified 15% disability. Considering Ext.A5
certificate and the nature of his job, we take 10%
disability. If that be so, compensation payable will be
Rs.15,000 x 17 x 10 = 25,500/=. The Tribunal has awarded
100
only Rs.7,500/= for disability and loss of earning
capacity. Hence, the claimant is entitled to an additional
amount of Rs.18,000/= on this count. For disfigurement and
loss of teeth, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/=. We are
not interfering with the same. We have taken Rs.1,250/= as
monthly income. For loss of earnings for the period he
was actually bed ridden, the Tribunal has given Rs.3,000/=.
Since we have taken Rs.1,250/= as the monthly income, he is
entitled to an additional amount of Rs.750/= under that
head. It is the case of the appellant that the entire
medical bills were not produced. The medical certificates
show that he needs continuous treatment. He has also
produced various medical bills to show that even now he is
continuing treatment. Medical bills for only Rs.656/= was
produced before the Tribunal. But, the Tribunal found that
during the period of treatment all the medical bills
cannot be produced and the amount awarded for medical
expenses was Rs.1,500/=. Considering the future treatment
and nature of head injury, we are granting an additional
MFA.1322/2000 6
amount of Rs.5,000/= for medical expenses and future
medical expenses. Even though it is contended that
compensation awarded under other heads are also very
meagre, we are not giving any enhancement under other
heads. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an
additional amount of Rs.23,750/=. The above amount of
Rs.23,750/= should be deposited by the third respondent
insurance company, over and above the decreed amount by the
Tribunal, with 8% interest from the date of accident till
its deposit. Since the accident occurred in 1991 and
considering the age of the appellant etc., on deposit of
the amount, the appellant is allowed to withdraw the same.
The appeal is partly allowed.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
K.P.BALACHANDRAN
JUDGE
tks