IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 363 of 2001() ------------------------------ OPMV.1598/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------- ROY, S/O. LONAPPAN, THEKKANATH HOUSE, PUZHAKKAL P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ----------------------- 1. V.S.PRABHASANKARAN, S/O. SANKARANARAYANAN, VALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR THIRUWAMBADY TEMPLE, THRISSUR. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01 / 02/ 2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.363 OF 2001 ------------------------------------- Dated 1st February, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J . Appellant/Claimant sustained injuries while he was travelling as a pillion in a moped when a car driven by the first respondent hit against the moped. Appellant claimed a compenstion of Rs.Six lakhs. The tribunal assessed an amount of Rs.79,500/- and found that the moped rider was negligent by 10% even though the car driver was mainly negligent. 10% of the compenstion was deducted and amount awarded was Rs.71,500/- with interest. The tribunal also directed the insurance company which insured the car to deposit the amount as there was valid insurance policy. The moped rider was not having a driving licence. Even though claimant adduced evidence to show that the car driver was negligent, the tribunal found that there is 10% negligence on the part of the moped rider and rider of the moped was not made as a party and their insurance company was directed to deposit only 90% of the amount. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no ground to interfere in the finding of the tribunal that rider of the moped in which the appellant was travelling is negligent by 10%. M.F.A.No.363/2001 2 2. Next contention is regarding the quantum of compensation. The appellant was aged 28. He was a headload worker. Identity card issued by the Headload Workers' Welfare Board was produced as Ext.A7 to prove his contentions. Ext.A8 salary certificate issued by the Headload Workers' Union Panchayat committee was also produced and proved and according to the appellant his daily income was Rs.150/- per day. The tribunal assessed only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income. The accident occurred in 1997. Considering the fact that he was a headload worker and considering the wages prevailing in Kerala State, we are of the opinion that he will get at least Rs.100/- per day and he may get 25 to 26 days' work in a month. Therefore, his monthly income is fixed at Rs.2,500/-. As regardsl his injuries are concerned, Ext.A2 wound certificate shows that there was deformity to his right knee ith punctured wound apart from lacerated wound on the right foot medially extending from the big toe to the 4th toe. X-ray revealed compound fracture of the medical condyle near the right knee. Ext.A5 discharge summary also shows that fracture was Grade II compound and there was sublaxation to the right knee and there was injury to the medial meniscal also. Open reduction and internal fixation were M.F.A.No.363/2001 3 done under general anasthesia. The certificate showed that there was comminuted fracture at the fracture site. Long leg POP slab was put thereafter. The orthopaedic surgeon who treated him issued a certificate assessing 20% disability. The tribunal did not accept the disability certificate, but, awarded Rs.30,000/= on a rough and ready estimate. The doctor was not examined. Considering the fractures and considering the job aspect, we are of the opinion that compensation could have been awarded on a scientific method taking at least 10% disability. The appellant was aged 29 at the time of accident. Taking guidance from the second schedule, 18 is the multiplier. If that be so, compensation payable will be Rs.2,500 x 12 x 18 x 10 = Rs.54,000/-. From the above, 10% of the amount has to be 100 deducted and balance amount payable will be Rs.48,600/-. The tribunal found that the appellant was under treatment for three months. We are of the opinion that compensation awarded by the tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable. Therefore, additional amount of Rs.48,600/- should be deposited by the second respondent insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit over and above the amount decreed by the M.F.A.No.363/2001 4 tribunal. On deposit of the amount, appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE vaa