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 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 9 of 2005() -------------------- OPMV.2406/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------- PRADEEPKUMAR, S/O.RAGHUNADHAN NAIR, PURATHEL HOUSE, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.NATESAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. CHACKO, S/O.EBRAHAM, MANIYILETTU HOUSE, AYYAPPANKOVIL, UDUMPANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. KURIAN ANDREWS, CHEMMATTUMATTAM, PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KATTAPPANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.ALEX GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH ERUTHICKEL FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.9 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.2406/1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated March 15, 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs.97,719/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. He sustained fracture shaft of femur in that accident that occurred on March 27, 1998 at about 6.30 p.m. at Kaniyamthodu, Vaikom. 2. The accident happened while the claimant was riding his motor cycle, he was knocked down by the lorry bearing Reg.No.KL 5E 199 driven by respondent No.1. Alleging negligence against the first respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the MACA.No.9/2005 2 offending lorry remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending lorry filed a written statement admitting the policy. 4. Exts.A1 to A16 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 evidence found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 97,719/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.2,500/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. MACA.No.9/2005 3 7. The break up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under : Treatment expenses - Rs.6,515/- Bystander expenses - Rs.3,000/- Transportation - Rs.1,000/- Pain and suffering - Rs.20,000/- Disability - Rs.34,500/- Loss of earnings - Rs.32,704/- 8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the disability caused and on other heads. 9. The Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.4,800/- and the percentage of disability as 9% as certified by the doctor in Ext.A10, certificate of disability and adopted a multiplier of 8 and awarded Rs. 34,500/- for the disability caused. Claimant was a Constable attached to the Boarder Security Force as evidenced by Ext.A11 certificate issued by the Commander. Ext.A15, his pay -slips, show that he was drawing a salary of Rs.4,088/-. Therefore, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in taking his salary as Rs. 4,800/- per month. He was aged 37 at the time of the accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier that has to be adopted is 18. The percentage of disability taken as 9% is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated for MACA.No.9/2005 4 the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 93,312/- ( 4800 x 12 x 18 x 9%). Thus on this count, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.58,812/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore are not disturbing the same. 10. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 58,812/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. 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 a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The Appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.9/2005 5 MACA.No.9/2005 6