IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 495 of 2007() --------------------------------- OPMV.1537/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): /2ND RESPONDENT. -------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT. ------------------------- VINOD KUMAR @ KUMAR, S/O.SOMAN, VALIYA VATTAKKUZHY MELAE PUTHEN VEEDU, PALIYODE, KOTTACKAL P.O., KUNNATHUKAL, ANAVOOR, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.495 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 3rd day of December 2008 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV)No.1537 of 2002. The claimant a 19 year old man sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.67,150/-. It can be seen from the award itself that a petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the insurance company. At the outset I may like to state that even without examining the person on the basis of some materials, the Tribunal had awarded a huge compensation which is not substantiated by materials. Paragraph 12 of the award deals with the case of the claimant in O.P.No.1537/2002. He was treated in the hospital as an inpatient for 4 days and he had sustained a compound fracture of the L1(vertibra). There was no neuro deficit. No further treatment record or disability certificate or any sort of other acceptable documents were produced. But the Tribunal still fixed the disability at 10% and calculated the compensation. The Tribunal also without much materials fixed the income of the person at Rs.2,000/- and MACA 495/2007 -:2:- applied a multiplier of 16. Besides this, it awarded Rs.12,500/- for discomfort and inconvenience. I feel the matter requires interference. Though there is no disability certificate the fact remains that the claimant had sustained a compound fracture of the L1(vertibra). Therefore it may not be on the higher side to fix the disability at 5%. Similarly, the income can be taken as Rs.18,000/- per annum for the reason that he was only a boy aged 19 years. When this is done and a multiplier of 16 is applied, the disability compensation would be Rs.900/- per annum which when multiplied by 16 would be Rs.14,400/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.38,400/- under that head and when deduction is made it had to be reduced by Rs.24,000/-. Similarly, for loss of amenities after granting a compensation under permanent disability one is only expected to give a nominal amount which I fix as Rs.5,000/-. Or in other words, an amount of Rs.7,500/- has to be deducted from the compensation awarded. Towards loss of earning also an amount of Rs.1,000/- will have to be deducted thereby a total deduction of Rs.32,500/- has to be made. Therefore the entitlement would be Rs.34,650/-. In the result, MACA is allowed and a revised award is passed for a sum of Rs.34,650/- with 7.5% interest per annum on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this MACA 495/2007 -:3:- judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-