IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1471 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.818/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV) -------------------------------------------- P.M.JOY, S/O.MATHAI, PANDALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALAKODU, NELLIMATTOM, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) ------------------------------------ 1. K.S.SANALKUMAR, CHELAKKAPPALLIL AGENCIES, IX/386, OTTAPPARAMBIL, BAKER HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 2. SUNILKUMAR, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, CHERUKANDATHIL HOUSE, PAIKATTUBHAGAM, PEROOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CITY BRANCH, PAREKKULAM BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON 26/11/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1471 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant in a road accident. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 2. The injuries suffered by the appellant is to various organs including his head. We are satisfied that the claim is quite genuine and going by the nature of injuries, the percentage of disability certified is also correct. However, in the absence of proof of educational qualification and details about employment, MACT fixed monthly income at Rs.1,500/-. Counsel for the appellant submitted that salary certificate should not have been rejected merely because employer was not examined. However, we are unable to accept this contention because there is no difficulty to get a salary certificate from a private employer and unless it is proved, MACT cannot be said to have acted 2 wrongly in rejecting it. Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company also submitted that strict evidence is required about income. It is also pointed out for the Insurance Company that compensation granted under various heads is quite reasonable. However, we feel correction is called for in regard to multiplier applied because going by the age, multiplier should have been 17 as against 16 applied by the MACT. This will entitle the appellant for an additional compensation of Rs.18,000/-. Besides this, considering the nature of disfigurement, we feel compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life calls for enhancement. We grant an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- under this head. The additional compensation granted by us will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from date of application till date of payment. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms