IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 MACA.No. 1169 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------- [O.P(MV).NO.992/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA] .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P(MV): ------------------------------------------------------ BENSON ANTONY, S/O. ANTHONY, PALLIPATT HOUSE, VALLAKUNNU DESOM, KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE AND P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY, SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P(MV): --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VINCENT ANTONY, S/O. ANTONY, PALLIPPAT HOUSE, VALLAKUNNU, KALLETTUMKARA P.O. 2. BABU, S/O. ANTHONY, PALLIPPAT HOUSE, VALLAKUNNU, KALLETTUMKARA P.O. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., IRINJALAKUDA. R3 BY ADV. SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.1169 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The claimant in O.P.(MV).No.992/2006 on the file of the M.A.C.T, Irinjalakkuda is the appellant. The appeal is directed challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. By the impugned award, the Tribunal allowed the petitioner to realise compensation for an amount of Rs.18,000/- with 7% interest per annum and proportionate costs. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation fixed by the Tribunal under different heads are meagre and inadequate and therefore requested this Court to interfere in appeal. The counsel submits that though the appellant/claimant claimed a very reasonable amount as compensation under different heads, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the same while passing the award. 3. The monthly income of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month. The learned counsel submits that Rs.2,000/- fixed as monthly income is too inadequate. According ::2:: M.A.C.A.No.1169 Of 2010 to him in every cases even for a housewife, consistently the court fixed Rs.3,000/- as monthly income. The fixation of Rs.2,000/- as monthly income is, no doubt, low. The learned counsel also submits that Ext.A5 disability certificate certified that the claimant is suffering from 10% permanent disability and that the court below went wrong in not relying on Ext.A5 disability certificate to support the case of the claimant that he is suffering from permanent disability. The appellant also pointed out that as per Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if a person sustained disability of permanent nature, then he is entitled to get an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal went wrong in not granting sufficient opportunity to support the case of the claimant that he is suffering from permanent disability. The appellant submits that he has become a permanent disabled person and attempted to prove the same by production of Ext.A5 disability certificate. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that an opportunity shall be given to the appellant/claimant to substantiate his contention regarding the claim under the head ::3:: M.A.C.A.No.1169 Of 2010 permanent disability and under other heads. As I found that the monthly income assessed is not reasonable, the Tribunal shall re- assess the monthly income and fix a reasonable amount under the said head. In the result, the award under challenge is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The case is remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The contesting parties namely, the appellant and third respondent insurance company shall appear before the Tribunal on 28.6.2011. The Tribunal shall expedite the trial and dispose of the O.P within six months thereafter. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-