IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 716 of 2006(C) ----------------------- OPMV.2072/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OPMV. ------------------------------------------- K.PRASANNAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, CHERUKKATT HOUSE, KODUVATHRA ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS OPMV. -------------------------------- 1. P.G.BABU, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI-19. 2. P.G.PATRIC DARWIN, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE VYTTIAL P.O., KOCHI-19. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, TRIPUNITHURA. ADV. SRI.T.D.ROBIN FOR R2 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 716 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is in appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. He sustained injuries when a goods Autorickshaw hit against the Motorcycle on which he was riding. The appellant sustained severely comminuted fracture of both bones on his right leg at junction of upper third and middle third with avulsion fracture of tibial tuberosity. Medical records revealed that there was loss of bone and the fracture was stabilised by using external fixation. There was non-union of tibia fracture due to implant failure. The injuries sustained by the appellant had resulted in persistent disability, the extent of which is certified as 20% by the Medical Board. But the Tribunal had granted only a consolidated sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for permanent disability. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the insurance company. The appellant contended 2 that at the time of the accident, he was aged 39 years and he was working as LIC Agent, and therefore notional income of Rs. 1500/- per month adopted by the Tribunal is highly unrealistic. It is also contended that instead of calculating loss of dependency based on the multiplier method the Tribunal had granted only an amount of Rs. 20,000/- which is too inadequate a compensation. 3. On an evaluation of the evidence on record and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the extent of disability assessed by the Medical Board is only probable, as evident from the seriousness of the injuries and the prolonged hospital treatment. Therefore we are persuaded to accept the contention of the appellant to calculate the amount under the multiplier method. We are inclined to compute the compensation for loss of permanent disability and earning power by adopting multiplier as 16. Therefore the compensation for permanent disability has to be re-fixed at Rs. 57,600/- (1500x12x16x20%). This will entitle the appellant for an additional amount of Rs. 37,600/-. Eventhough counsel for the appellant contended that the amounts awarded under various other 3 heads are on the lower side, we do not think any interference is called for in that respect. In the result, appeal is partly allowed enhancing the total compensation of Rs. 2,20,500/- awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs. 37,600/- which will carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. The third respondent- insurance company is directed to make payment of the amount within a period of three months. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C. K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk 4