IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 MACA.No. 392 of 2004 ------------------------------ OP(MV) 823/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM ...................................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ MANIKANDAN @ MANI S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 33 YEARS, KUTTIKKATTIL VEEDU, KAVALAPPARA POST, SHORNUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. V.M. CHANDRAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, VETTUKALLUMPURATH HOUSE, ERATTAYAR NORTH POST, EZHUKUMVAYAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. JOHN IDICULA, S/O. K.G. SAMUEL, EX-SERVICEMAN COLONY, KOLATHUPUZHA. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PARAMESHWARA PILLAI, P.B.NO.157, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOLLAM. 4. A.P.M.A. MEERAN, S/O. A.P.M. AZEEZ, 84-A, MAIN ROAD, KRISHNAPURAM, KADAYANALLUR, THENKASI. 5. THE NATINAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 37 C, S.N. HIGH ROAD, OPP. TO HEAD POST OFFICE, THIRUNELVELLI. R3 AND R5 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.392 OF 2004 ------------------------------------- Dated 6th March, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant/claimant met with an accident by which he sustained serious injuries. He was a passenger in a vehicle which collided with another vehicle. Both vehicles are insured by the same insurance company. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both drivers and negligence was apportioned equally between the drivers. But, against a claim of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/= only Rs.1,67,000/= was awarded. Injuries are mentioned in paragraph six of the award in very detail. Therefore, we are not repeating the same in this judgment. Disability certificate shows that there is 20% disability. Tribunal assessed 15% disability and granted compensation taking Rs.2,100/= as the monthly income. It is submitted that he was brought before the Tribunal after two years of the accident in an ambulance. Even at that time, the fracture was not united and he was unable to travel in normal transport. Tribunal noticed his condition at paragraph 7 as follows: “The petitioner is examined as PW1 before the tribunal. The petitioner was brought to the tribunal in an ambulance and gave evidence lying on a structure as the femur was not united and was direction ot to shake or move the same.” MACA.392/2004 2 Tribunal also held that there is nothing to disbelieve the disability certificate. In the above circumstances, Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for 20% disability instead of 15% disability. He was aged only 33. Tribunal has taken only 16 as the multiplier. As per the second schedule, 17 is t he apt multiplier. If that be so, compensation payable will be Rs.85,680/= (Rs.2,100 x 12 x 20 x 17). 10 0 Tribunal has granted only 60,500/= for disability. Therefore, claimant will be entitled to an additional amount of 25,180/= under this head. Even though it was argued that compensation granted under other heads are also meagre, considering the total compensation awarded, we are of the opinion that no enhancement is necessary under other heads. The above amount of Rs.25,180/= should be deposited by the third and fifth respondent (National Insurance Company Ltd.) with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit, over and above the decreed amount by the Tribunal. On deposit of the amount, appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. Appeal is partly allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks