IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1157 of 2006(G) ----------------------- OPMV.1358/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): /1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADAU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION MADURAI DIVISION V, VIRUDUNAGAR. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS & 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, VARUVIALAKATHU PUTHENVEEDU, MANACKAKAM, MONGOTTUKONAM, KATTAKADA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SAKTHIPEDARI, AYYAPURAM THENKASI P.O., THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1157 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV) 1358/00. The claimant, a 21 year old driver, sustained injuries in a road accident while he was travelling in a van which collied with a transport Corporation Bus resulting in injuries to him. The Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.72,150/-. It is against the negligence as well as quantum the Corporation has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Corporation. The Police has filed a charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The claimant has been examined as PW1. He had spoken about the negligence of the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus did not file even a written statement nor has mounted the box to give any evidence. It can also be seen that PW1 was not even cross examined. Therefore on M.A.C.A. 1157 OF 2006 -:2:- the basis of the uncontradicted testimony of PW1 coupled with the police charge, finding of negligence entered into by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 3. The next is regarding the quantum of compensation. A perusal of the award would reveal that he had sustained a fracture on the humerus and ulna. He was treated as an inpatient in the Medical College Hospital from 2.1.00 to 12.1.00 and later in the Taluk Hospital, Neyyattinkara from 12.1.00 to 24.1.00. The Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.2,000/- and awarded Rs.12,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.6,100/- towards medical expenses and other expenses were also granted. The Tribunal considered the disability certificate of 15%, reduced it to 10% and applied a multiplier of 17 and calculated the compensation. The Doctor who had issued the certificate had not been examined. Even the Tribunal has opined that it is too difficult for him to agree with the assessment made by the Doctor in Ext.A1. Considering the fact that the claimant is a M.A.C.A. 1157 OF 2006 -:3:- driver by profession and that he had sustained a fracture on the ulna and humerus I fix the disability at 8% and calculate the compensation. As per the decision of the Apex Court in 2009 ACJ 1298(Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation) the appropriate multiplier is to be 18 and when it is applied it would be Rs.34,560/- and when a nominal compensation for loss of amenities of Rs.5,000/- is awarded, it will come to Rs.39,560/- for which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.46,800/- making a difference of Rs.7,240/-. Similarly, the Tribunal's rate of interest has to be some where between 7 and 8% and therefore it is only reasonable to grant the interest at the rate of 8% and not at the rate of 9%. therefore the appeal is partly allowed and a revised award is passed as follows. The claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.64,910/- with 8% interest on the said sum from 20.10.00 till the date of realisation from respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The first respondent namely the appellant herein is directed to deposit the amount within 90 days form the date of M.A.C.A. 1157 OF 2006 -:4:- receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any amount is already deposited only the balance need to be deposited and if there is any amount excess in deposit it be reimbursed to the appellant. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-