IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 2920 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------- OP(MV).NO.617/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL. .................... APPELLANT/ APPLICANT: ------------------------------------- ABDUL BARI , AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.ABDUTHALIB, PADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, VELLOORKKONAM, KUDAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF, MR.A.MOHAMED RASHID. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE PRINCIPAL, K.T.C.T.ENGLISH MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, THOTTAKKADU P.O., KALLAMBALAM-695 605. 2. SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O.ISMAIL, K.S.MANZIL, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, CHATHAMPARA P.O., (VIA) ALAMODE, PIN-695 102. 3. M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, ASH-HAR BUILDINGS, NEAR-BUS STAND, BRANCH OFFICE, ATTINGAL. BY THIS MOTOR A CCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009,THE COURT ON 03/02/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. -------------------------------------------- MACA.No.2920 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim,J. The claimant in OP.No.617/2002 on the files of the MACT, Attingal is the appellant. The accident occurred on 11.6 .2001. While the appellant was walking on a public road he was knocked down by a Mini Bus. The appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the mini bus and accordingly fixed a liability on the third respondent accepting that there existed a valid insurance policy. The appellant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. The main challenge is that inspite of production of Ext.A8 certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board, the Tribunal had accepted a cumulative disability of 10% only. It is noticed that Ext.A8 certificate was not proved by examining any of the Doctors who issued the same. Further the Tribunal found MACA.2920 /2008 2 that there is no materials to show that the disability certificate was issued referring to any document pertaining to treatment of the appellant. There is no convincing reasoning mentioned in Ext.A8 for assessment of the disability at 15%. The learned Tribunal, though not found Ext.A8 as accepted, 10% whole body disability was taken for the purpose of calculation of the amount. 3. Another main thrust of dispute is regarding the income of the appellant. As per Ext.P11 certificate the appellant claims that he was working as helper in a private travel agency and he was drawing a monthly wages at the rate of Rs.3750/-. The Tribunal found that there is no convincing evidence produced to prove the certificate and nobody was examined to prove his employment. Therefore, the Tribunal adopted a notional income of Rs.2500/- p.m. and the disability was calculated on the said basis. An amount of Rs.31200/-was calculated as compensation for continuing and permanent disability and an amount of Rs.10400/- was allowed as compensation for loss of amenities and discomfort. Reasonable compensation was seen awarded in various other heads also. Total compensation of Rs.63,155/- was allowed along with interest at the rate of 7.5.% p.a. We do not MACA.2920 /2008 3 think the quantum of compensation awarded is either inadequate or unreasonable. There is absolutely no materials produced warranting enhancement of the compensation awarded. Hence the appeal fails and stands dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Pmn/