IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MACA.No. 712 of 2006() 1. SADANANDAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, ... Petitioner Vs 1. A.T.ANTHAPPAN, ... Respondent 2. ABIN THOMAS, ATHANI LANE, 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY For Respondent :SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS Dated :27/07/2009 O R D E R K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. `````````````````````````````````````````````` M.A.C.A. NO: 712 OF 2006 ```````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th Day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT
K. M. Joseph J.
Since Insurance is admitted, we dispense with notice to the
respondents 1 and 2.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the third respondent.
3. The application was filed by the appellant under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant has been awarded a sum of
Rs.79,350/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The appeal is
directed against the quantum.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that this is
a case where the appellant suffered the following injuries:
“1. Multiple lacerated wounds on the right side of
head on the fronto-parieto occipital region.
2. Lacerated wound on the left side of forehead.
M.A.C.A . NO: 712 OF 2006 :2:
3. Bleeding through the nose.
4. Multiple abrassions on the left shoulder, front of
chest, left thigh and both knees.”
5. The appellant was examined by the Medical Board, which
has certified in Ext.A9 Certificate that the appellant has suffered 25%
disability. The Tribunal without any reason taken the disability only at
10%. He further contends that the multiplier was taken at 12, when the
multiplier should have been taken as 17 pointed out in the Second
Schedule. Going by the judgment in Sarla Verma & Others Vs.
Delhi Transport Corpn. and another (2009 ACJ 1298), at least the
multiplier 16 should have been applied. He further contends that
income of the appellant is taken as Rs.1,750/- per month. He pointed
out that Ext.A8 is the Salary certificate issued by his employer. The
learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award.
6. The first question to be considered is what is to be taken as
the income of the appellant. The accident took place on 22.6.1997.
Ext.A8 is the salary certificate issued on 3-6-2002. No doubt the
appellant has been examined as PW1. Having regard to the date of the
M.A.C.A . NO: 712 OF 2006 :3:
accident and vocation of the appellant, which was that of a non-skilled
worker in a Construction company, we can safely fix the income of the
appellant as Rs.1,800/- per month.
7. Going by paragraph 21 of Sarla Verma’s case, we can take
16 as the multiplier in the place of 12. The further the question to be
considered is regarding the disability certificate. The appellant would
contend that the medical certificate issued by the Medical board is to be
followed by the court. The Tribunal has noted that according to the
Survey (apparently referred as “disability certificate”), the appellant has
got neurological deficit, which in the course of time may improve.
Thereafter, the Tribunal observed in view of the disability certificate
that, the disability percentage noted by Medical Board would get
narrowed down in the course of time and if so, the disability for the
purpose of calculation of future loss of earnings, cannot be more than
10%. Even so, we notice that the injuries are head injuries. C.T. Scan
of brain would show subdural haematoma right fronto – parietal region
and M.R.I. scan shows thin SDH right fronto-parietal region. Of
course the appellant had head injuries. We think that we can safely fix
M.A.C.A . NO: 712 OF 2006 :4:
the disability at 12%. On this basis, the appellant would be entitled to
get a sum of Rs.14,972/- more after deducting the amount already
awarded towards disability. An amount of Rs.5,000/- is also awarded
under the head loss of earning power and Rs.5,000/- towards disability.
We also award Rs.2,000/- more towards loss of amenity. On the basis
of income we have arrived, the appellant would be entitled to get an
amount of Rs.12,000/- more towards loss of earnings. Thus, the total
amount of compensation would be around 18,182/- (rounded off to
Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the appellant is allowed to
realise an amount of Rs.18,000/- more along with interest at the rate of
7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the third
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.