IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 1088 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1446/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- ABRAHAM J.PAIKADA, RESIDING AT PARAKKARIYIL HOUSE, NEAR M.G.UNIVERSITY, MANNANAM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. M.S.SAJEEV, S/O. K.R.SEKHARAN, SRAYAS HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. SAJEEV, S/O. PADMANABHAN, ARYAPPALLIL HOUSE, VELUMKULAM BHAGOM, MANNANAM, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH KOCHI, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= M.A.C.A. No. 1088 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J: In this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1446 of 1996 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam challenges the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the loss caused to him, on account of the injury sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these:- On October 15, 1995 at 2.30 p.m. while the claimant was riding a motor bike and reached at Athirampuzha, he was knocked down by a goods auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL 5C 7394 driven by the second respondent and sustained serious injuries. According to the claimant, the accident occurred due to a rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the second respondent. The first respondent as the owner, second respondent as the driver and third respondent as the MACA 1088/04 2 insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The claimant claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending goods auto rickshaw remained absent and were set ex parte by the Tribunal. The third respondent Insurance Company field a written statement, admitting the policy and further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant and that the second respondent has no valid driving licence. 4. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A21 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting third respondent. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs.83,200/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and costs. The claimant has come up in appeal, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. MACA 1088/04 3 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the third respondent. 6. The claimant sustained communited fracture of right patella, fracture of right radius and lacerated wounds over the right leg, right knee and tip of ring finger. Ext.A4 is a copy of the wound certificate and Ext.A5 is the discharged card issued from the hospital. Ext.A6 is another discharge card issued from the hospital. He has now a disability of 15% as testified by PW1 doctor and as certified in Ext.A8 certificate. 7. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.83,200/-. The break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Loss of earnings : Rs.6,800/- Treatment expenses : Rs.3,000/- By-stander expenses : Rs.1,500/- Transportation : Rs.1,000/- Pain and suffering : Rs.15,000/- Permanent disability : Rs.45,900/- Loss of earning : Rs.10,000/- ---------------- Total : Rs.83,200/- ======= MACA 1088/04 4 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly sought enhancement of compensation awarded under disability caused. The Tribunal took monthly income of the claimant as Rs.1,700/- and adopted a multiplier of 15. The disability assessed by PW1 doctor in Ext.A8 as 15% is not seriously disputed. The claimant was aged 29 at the time of the accident. According to the claimant, he was a Contractor undertaking panchayat works and had a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-, for which no document was produced. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in taking his income as Rs.1,700/-. As the claimant is aged 29, the proper multiplier is 18 as seen in Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the Tribunal should have taken the multiplier as 18. Thus, calculating for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.55,080/-. Thus, on this count the claimant is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.9,180/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable. 9. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to an additional MACA 1088/04 5 compensation of Rs.9,180/- with interest @ 9% from date of petition till realization and proportionate costs. The third respondent, being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified the above extent. 10. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as found above. Sd/- A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. Sd/- P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn /true copy/ P.S. to Judge.