IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1243 of 2007(A) ----------------------- OPMV.899/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- PAPPAN @ PADMAKUMAR, S/O. BALAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KAKKADU KARA, MAMALA P.O., THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE K.S.R.T.C., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. M.A. KUMARAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, VETTICHUVATTIL HOUSE, PALAKUZHA KARA, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, KOOTHATTUKULAM. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1243 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim,J. The claimant before the Tribunal is in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. The accident occurred when the Motor Cycle on which the appellant was riding collided with a KSRTC Bus. The Tribunal once dismissed the appeal holding that the appellant was negligent in causing the accident. The matter came up before this Court in appeal in MACA.1353/05. This Court found that the accident was due to contributory negligence and apportioned extent of negligence at 50% each on the appellant and on the driver of the KSRTC Bus, and remanded the case for fixing the quantum of compensation based on such finding. In the appellate judgment this Court observed that, the appellant had produced many documents like disability certificate, certificate evidencing requirement of future treatment, etc. and the Tribunal was directed to have a fresh consideration of the matter on the question of fixing the quantum of compensation for which the appellant is entitled to. 2. The appellant contended that after remand of the matter he had produced additional documents through MACA. 1243/07 2 I.A.No:4550/2006 filed before the Tribunal. But the Tribunal declined to accept new evidence, through order dated 12.12.2006 passed in I.A.4550/2006, holding that the High Court has not permitted the claimant to adduce further evidence. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. The appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have accepted additional evidence and to have allowed compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earning power based on the certificate produced. It is also contended that the notional income of Rs.2000/- adopted by the Tribunal inspite of evidence that the appellant was working as a Supervisor under the Civil Contractor, is highly unrealistic and inadequate. Further contention is that the amounts awarded under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment in life are highly inadequate. The denial of any amount for future treatment was also attacked by the appellant. 3. The non-acceptance of additional documents produced in evidence was not proper on the part of the Tribunal, in view of the observations made by this Court in the previous appeal, quoted as above. Copies of additional documents produced before the Tribunal was annexed along with this appeal. On a MACA. 1243/07 3 perusal of Annexure-II disability certificate issued by the Medical Board attached to the General Hospital, Ernakulam, we notice that the extent of disability sustained by the appellant is assessed at 40%. Annexure-1 Certificate issued from the Lakeshore Hospital revealed that the appellant need a hip replacement surgery, the cost of which is estimated as Rs.3.5 lakh. On evaluating the evidence on record it is revealed that the appellant was working as a Supervisor at the time of the accident. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the income can reasonably be estimated at Rs.3000/-. Calculated on that basis, adopting multiplier of 18 the compensation on account of permanent disability and loss of earning power will work out to Rs.2,59,200/- (3000 x 12 x 18 x 40%). Temporary loss of earning for 42 months will work out to Rs.1,26,000/-, which will entitle the appellant for an enhancement of Rs.42,000/- under that head. The amount of Rs.18,000/- awarded under the head of loss of amenities need be re-fixed as Rs.25,000/- which will entitle the appellant for an enhancement of Rs.7000/- under that head. Considering Annexure-A1 certificate regarding future treatment we are inclined to award a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under that head. Thus the total compensation is liable to be enhanced by a sum of MACA. 1243/07 4 Rs.4,08,200/-. Since the appellant is only entitled for 50% of the amount on account of the finding of contributory negligence compensation payable to him is Rs.2,04,100/-. In the result the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the appellant from Rs.1,84,500/- by a further sum of Rs.2,04,100/- which will carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. The 1st respondent is directed to make payment of the amount within a period of three months. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb