IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 1853 of 2007 ----------------------- OPMV.1263/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S):PETITIONER --------------------------------------- VASUDEVAN,S/O.KRISHNAN PERANDAPARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KONDAZHI,PAZHAYANNOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR, M/S.AMEEN TRANSPORT (P) LTD., POST OFFICE ROAD, SHORNUR. 2. VELAYUDHAN,S/O. KUNJUKUTTAN, POOLAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVILWAMALA,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD BRANCH: OTTAPALAM. (NO APPEARANCE FOR THE RESPONDENTS) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. NO. 1853 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th June, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. Appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming an amount of Rs.4,01,500/= as compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. Appellant is seen granted a total sum of Rs.1,47,400/=. This Appeal is directed against the quantum. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though served, there is no appearance for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant attacked the Award on four grounds. According to him, the Certificate shows that the appellant suffered permanent disability of thirty per cent, but only twenty per cent is taken by the tribunal. Secondly, it is contended that loss of earnings is given only for six months. Thirdly, it is pointed out that only Rs.15,000/= was granted MACA. NO.1853/07 B 2 towards loss of amenities and this is too low. Fourthly, it is pointed out that he suffered disfiguration and no amount is granted towards disfiguration. 4. According to the appellant, he was a dealer in fruits, he used to travel and collect fruits and it was while so he suffered the accident. It is pointed out that the disability should not have been reduced from thirty per cent to twenty per cent. It is pointed out that the appellant was using crutches even at the time when the evidence was taken and the tribunal had occasion to see him also that he was in crutches. The evidence was taken after six years and this itself shows the genuineness of the Certificate issued, he submits. The injuries sustained are as follows: “Head injury, brain oedema, comminutted intercondylar fracture right femur, compound comminutted fracture patella with ligament injury, compound fracture clavicle left, fracture zygomatic arch left side and mild head injury and lacerated injury forehead and scalp subtrochanteric fracture left femur, comminutted MACA. NO.1853/07 B 3 fracture shaft of left femur.” 5. We notice that the tribunal has also noted that the appellant was using crutches and it has come out in evidence that he was unable to fold his knees and he was subjected to pateloctomy. It was further noticed that there is wastage of muscles and shortening of right lower limb. It was on the above basis that the tribunal found that the appellant has wholebody disability of twenty per cent and was awarded Rs.72,000/= for permanent disability, taking Rs.2,000/= as monthly income and seventeen as multiplier. No doubt, the Doctor was not examined. But, we would think that having regard to the nature of the injuries, the fact that he was found in crutches even after nearly six years, his inability to fold his knees and the nature of the vocation that he was carrying on, we can fix the per centage of permanent disability at twentyfour per cent. If so, applying the multiplier theory, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.97,920/=. After deducting the amount of Rs.72,000/= already awarded, the MACA. NO.1853/07 B 4 appellant is entitled to Rs.25,920/= which is rounded off to Rs.26,000/=. 6. As far as the contention based on loss of earning is concerned, though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that compensation for loss of earning should have been granted at least for six months more, we see no warrant for the same. We do not think that on the basis of the injuries and having regard to the vocation of the appellant, that the amount awarded towards loss of earnings for six months can be characterised as unreasonable. We reject the contention. The third complaint is regarding loss of amenities. Here, we feel that in view of the fact that already Rs.15,000/= has been awarded, in the nature of the injuries, in particular of the fact that the appellant is unable to bend his knees, he can be awarded Rs.5,000/- more. 7. The last complaint is regarding absence of any compensation for disfiguration. Shortening of the leg was by 3 cms. No amount is seen granted. We would think that interest MACA. NO.1853/07 B 5 of justice would be subserved, if we grant Rs.7,000/= towards disfiguration. Thus, the appellant is entitled to R.38,000/= more and the appellant is allowed to realise Rs.38,000/= more from the respondents with 7.5 per cent interest from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The Appeal is partly allowed as above. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge