IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 991 of 2007() -------------------------------- (AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 18.1.2007 IN OPMV NO.157/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR) .......................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ AJAYKUMAR, S/O AYYAPAN PILLAI, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, JANATHA ROAD, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 --------------------------------------------------------- 1. MR. M.T.BABU, MECKAMALIL HOUSE, NETAJI ROAD, ALUVA 683101 2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., P.M.A.BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR BANK JUNCTION, ALUVA PIN 683101. R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.991 of 2007-B ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 20th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. The appellant, while aged 14 years was involved in an accident. He was driving the bicycle which was hit by a scooter driven by the 2nd respondent which was insured with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,470/-. Reducing 25 percent of the total compensation finding contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, appellant was awarded Rs.52,852.50. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimant has filed the appeal. 2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal has erred on the ground of contributory negligence and it should not have been reduced 25 percent. The appellant is a student aged 14 years. Further, he would contend that the multiplier for computing MACA No.991/2007 -2- compensation for disability at Rs.18,000/- is on the lower side. He referred us the disability in non-fatal accidents in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and contend that it should be more. He also contended that the income taken at Rs.1,250/- as non-earning member should not be applied for the whole period as he would be earning more money and it is not a case of death. He pointed out that as per A7 certificate the disability is fixed at 15 percent. But, the Tribunal has taken 8 percent disability. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurance company justified the award. 4. The appellant was only 14 years of age and was riding the bicycle. No doubt, the Tribunal found that he was on the wrong side but having regard to the age of the appellant we feel that apportionment of negligence should be interfered with and we feel that 15 percent negligence can be attributed to the appellant. On the said count the appellant would be entitled to Rs.7,000/- more. 5. We also feel that the appellant can be awarded a further sum of Rs. 8,500/- under the head loss of amenities in view of the disability suffered. As far as multiplier is MACA No.991/2007 -3- concerned, we are not interfering. It is an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has taken the multiplier as 15. We reject as unsustainable the contention of the appellant that the income of Rs.1,250/- is inadequate for the entire period. Once the multiplier is taken on the basis of the age of the appellant being 14 and not as earning member we fail to see how the appellant's request to take higher multiplier for arriving at compensation can be granted. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is allowed to realise Rs.15,500/- more with interest at 7.5 percent from the date of the petition till realisation of the amount from the second respondent. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS