IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1721 of 2007(F) ----------------------- OPMV.1343/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- SHIJU,S/O. ANTONY, ALAPPATTU MANIPALU HOUSE, PUDURKARA, P.O. AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. BABU,S/O. BALAN,MUTHIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, SANTHI NAGAR, P.O.,PULLAZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JOOBY @ JUPITER,S/O. DEVASSY, THEKKEKARA THAKARAN, PUDURKARA P.O., AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., B.O. 2, KPN SHOPPING COMPLEX, SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A C.A. NO: 1721 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th Day of August , 2009. JUDGMENT K. M. Joseph J. The appellant is the applicant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, he has filed this appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 3. The appellant has been awarded a total sum of Rs.1,28,400/-, which includes an amount of Rs.74,800/- towards expense for treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for loss of amenities. Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering and further a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for discomfiture. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant had produced Ext.A11 Disability certificate. It shows that the M.A.C.A . NO: 1721 OF 2007 :2: appellant has 20% disability. The nature of the injuries according to the appellant are severe head injury, fracture parietal bone right side, diffuse cerebral oedema with narrowing of ventricular system, SAH with bifrontal contusion surgical emphysema bilateral flail chest. The complaint placed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards disability of 20%. According to the appellant he was working as a sales man. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company points out that the Doctor was not examined and that the appellant continues to work as a sales man. He submits that the percentage of disability certified is high. 6. Having considered the nature of injuries and also in the light of Ext.A11, we feel that the appellant is entitled to get compensation towards disability suffered by him. No doubt, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- under the head discomfiture. The complaint is that the multiplier is not applied. The appellant was aged 22 years. Going by the judgment in Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corpn. M.A.C.A . NO: 1721 OF 2007 :3: and another (2009 ACJ 1298),'s case, the multiplier can be adopted as 18. Taking the income at Rs.2,000/- which was arrived by the Tribunal, we would think that the percentage of disability has to be fixed. We would think that in the nature of the injuries as it affected the brain, we may not be unjustified in fixing the percentage of disability at 10%. On this basis, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.43,200/-. But after deducting the amount already awarded towards discomfiture, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.28,000/-. The appellant is allowed to realise Rs.28,000/- more along with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the respondents. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/