IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 993 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.518/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV) -------------------------------------------------- THOMAS, S/O.VARKEY, KOTTEKKALI HOUSE, POOVATHUSSERY P.O., KALLUR, THEKKUMMURI, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN OP(MV) ----------------------------------- 1. M.J.GEORGE, S/O.M.L.JACOB, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, ELANTHIKARA P.O., NORTH PARAVUR. 2. MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., ALUVA ROAD, ANGAMALY. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH ADV. SRI.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.993 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Since there is no appearance for the Insurance Company inspite of service of notice, we directed Mr.Jacob Murickan who appeared in the connected case, to appear and argue the matter on behalf of the Insurance Company. Accordingly counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Jacob Murickan appearing for the Insurance Company were heard. 2. The appellant while driving the car hit the same against a standing tree and sustained injury. His wife who was a Lecturer and a co-passenger along with him also sustained injuries. Separate applications filed by both appellant and his wife were allowed in part by the MACT by a common award. We had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant's wife for enhancement of compensation. The case of the appellant is that reduction of disability certified by the Doctor from 12% to 9% is not justified. Besides this, the monthly income fixed for the appellant at Rs.1,500/- is too low is his case. Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that claim is under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and if appellant's income 2 was above Rs.3,300/-, he is not entitled to compensation. Even though appellant produced no proof towards income earned by him, it is admitted that he was running a small scale industrial unit. If appellant was running an industrial unit, then he is engaged in production and sale of goods and there is no reason why he could not produce any materials such as turnover declared annually, gross profit, net profit etc. Probably if documents were produced, appellant would have been disqualified for claiming compensation under the policy. In fact originally he declared monthly income at Rs.4,000/- which was later reduced to Rs.3,200/- to get the benefit of policy. In any case in the absence of any evidence, we find no ground to interfere with the fixation of income by the Tribunal for the purpose of awarding compensation. Moreover, going by the nature of injuries, we feel there is inflation of the percentage of permanent disability certified by the Doctor and there is nothing wrong in the Tribunal giving a marginal reduction to it and fixing compensation based on the same. We do not find any ground to interfere with the award of the MACT. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms