IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 2207 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.724/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- ABOOBAKCER SIDDIQUE, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ALIKURIKKAL, KULANJHEERI, PUNNAPPALA P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ---------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED SHAFI, S/O.SEETHI, PANANILATH HOUSE, P.O.MAMPAD, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. (OWNER). 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NILAMBUR. ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR FOR R.2 ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 2207 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant is the petitioner in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As against the claim of Rs. 3 lakhs, an amount of Rs.1,00,012/- was awarded, the break up details of which are as shown below. Transportation to hospital Rs. 500.00 Extra nourishment and by standers expenses Rs. 3,300.00 Medical expenses Rs.52,512.00 Pain and suffering Rs.15,000.00 Disability (15000 x 6 x 8/100) Rs.16,200.00 Future medical expenses Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of earning for 6 months Rs. 7,500.00 -------------------- Total Rs.1,00,012.00 ============ M.A.C.A.No. 2207 of 2006 2 The appeal is directed against th quantum of compensation awarded. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 3. In view of the fact that insurance is admitted, we dispose of the appeal itself on merits by consent. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the income taken in calculating the disability compensation is very low. Only an amount of Rs.1,250/- p.m. is taken. The counsel further contends that no amount was awarded towards loss of amenities. She further contends that the amount awarded towards bystanders expenses is very low. The appellant was in the hospital for 64 days. An amount of Rs.52,512/- only was awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.3,300/- was awarded towards bystanders expenses. M.A.C.A.No. 2207 of 2006 3 5. The first question to be considered is what is the income. The accident took place on 10.9.2001. The appellant has given evidence as PW1 to substantiate that he was getting a monthly income of Rs.4,500/- Having regard to the year of the accident, we feel that we can fix the income at Rs.2,000/- p.m. On the said basis, applying the multiplier 18 and taking 6% as the disability as taken by the Tribunal and after deducting the amount already awarded, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.9,720/- more. On the basis of the income which we are taking, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.4,500/- more under the head loss of earnings. We also feel that the appellant should be granted Rs.3,100/- more under the head bystanders expenses. 6. There is merit in the contention of the appellant that the appellant should have been awarded compensation towards loss of amenities. He suffered compound fracture right femur, compound communited fracture both bones of M.A.C.A.No. 2207 of 2006 4 right leg, heal pad avulsion (R), Head injury, lacerated would medial aspect of right foot and knee stiffness. We award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of amenities. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.27,320/- which is rounded off to Rs.27,500/- 7. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is allowed to realise an amount of Rs.27,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the second respondent. We also award 7.5% interest on the amount already awarded by the Tribunal instead of 6% from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the second respondent. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm