IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1820 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.698/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MALAPPURAM, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------- MUNEER, S/O. ABU @ ABOOBACKER, NARAPULAM HOUSE, P.O.OORAGAM, KEEZHUMURI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER FOR R.1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2031/2006 IN M.A.C.A. NO.1820/2006 DISMISSED. 24.11.2008. SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// J.B.KOSHY & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1820 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 24th November, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J Appellant is the 3rd the respondent/insurance company in O.P.(MV) No.698/2003. The respondent in this case (the petitioner in the above O.P) sustained very serious injuries in a motor accident. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent - the driver of the bus bearing No.KL-10D-7557, and the above bus was owned by the 2nd respondent and insured by the 3rd respondent. The first and second respondents filed vakalath but did not file written statement. The 4th respondent was declared ex parte. The appellant insurance company was given permission to contest the case on merit. Against a total claim of Rs.12,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,62,300/-. The only dispute herein is against the quantum of compensation. 2. The injured was aged only 24 years at the time of M.A.C.A. 1820/06 -:2:- accident. The Tribunal has taken 17 as the multiplier. According to the claimant, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, higher multiplier `18' should be taken if the age of the victim of the accident is between 21 to 25 years. Taking second schedule as a guideline, 17 is the multiplier and the same need not be enhanced. According to the claimant, he was working in a company as a workman on daily income of Rs.200/-. He produced Ext.A8 salary certificate. Since the person who issued the certificate is not examined, the Tribunal did not accept the same. But Rs.3000/- is fixed as monthly income. Considering the fact that the accident occurred in 2003 and that the monthly income taken is only the minimum, we are of the opinion that Rs.3000/- fixed by the Tribunal needs no interference. 3. Ext.A2 is the wound certificate produced by the claimant issued from the hospital where he was treated. In Ext.A2, the injuries sustained by him are (i) fracture of right femur and (2) amputation of right leg. Ext.A3 discharge card shows that he was admitted in the hospital on M.A.C.A. 1820/06 -:3:- 13.3.2003 and was discharged on 6.5.2003. In the discharge card injuries noted are (1) fracture of shaft of right femur and (2) crush injury of right knee. Ext.A9 is the treatment certificate which shows that revascularisation was done as an emergency, but, the limb did not survive and it was amputated below knee to save the life of the patient. Subsequently it was amputated above knee. Several times he had been admitted and discharged from the hospital. Out of the amount awarded Rs. 1,66,500/- is towards reimbursement of medical bills on the basis of the actual bills produced by him. Ext.A9 certificate shows that he is having 40% permanent disability. Hence, the compensation was calculated for 40% disability. It is submitted that apart from the above, Rs.3,90,000/- was awarded as cost of artificial limb. That was granted on the basis of Ext.A10 quotation issued by the Otto Health Care. Artificial leg is necessary for him. He was only a labourer and will not get any substantial earnings with the amputated right leg above knee and in effect, there is 100% loss of earning capacity. Even going by item 19 of Schedule 1 of Workmen's Compensation Act, compensation payable for loss of earning capacity is 60%. Considering the fact that a person M.A.C.A. 1820/06 -:4:- who lost his right leg above knee needs the artificial limb the amount granted for purchasing the same is not excessive. We are of the opinion that the compensation awarded only for 40% is inadequate considering the nature of the injury, amputation and the age of the injured as he has to suffer till his death. However we are not enhancing the compensation for disability and loss of earning power as no appeal is filed by the claimant. But considering the total compensation awarded, we see no ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal at the instance of the insurance company. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- M.A.C.A. 1820/06 -:5:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order Dated: M.A.C.A. 1820/06 -:6:-