IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1514 of 2004() --------------------------------- MVOP.89/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------- SANTHOSH, S/O. NANNAKKAL, SADANANDAN, PULLUT P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.K. SAIDUKUTTY, S/O. KOYA HAJI, MAVULLAKANDI, KADAVOOR VILLAGE, PUNNOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE, (DRIVER). BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC - R1 SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC KSRTC THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1514 OF 2004 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.M.V.No.89/1997. The claimant, a passenger in a tempo van, sustained injuries in a road accident on account of collision between tempo van and K.S.R.T.C bus. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained fracture of the right hand, lacerated wound on the eye brow and other bodily injuries. He was treated in the Heart Hospital at Thrissur and was awarded a total compensation of Rs.53,000/-. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant as well as the Corporation. The main grievance of the counsel for the appellant is that inspite of the disability certificate issued by the doctor fixing the disability at 20% and examining him as a witness, the Tribunal only took disability at 5% and calculated the compensation. He would submit that it has affected his client's entitlement to the real compensation. M.A.C.A.1514/04 2 3. PW1, the claimant, had deposed that he was working as a Route Manager in a liquor shop. The salary certificate issued was not accepted for the reason that the employer was not examined. The Tribunal fixed the income of the claimant as Rs.1,500/- per mensum. The disability certificate, according to the doctor, has caused weakness for the right upper limb and there is difficulty to travel. Inspite of the same, the Tribunal was not right in fixing the disability at 5% even after the doctor's examination, especially in the absence of any concrete evidence to the contra. Even if it is taken as a disability for that part, for calculating the compensation atleast 10% disability can be taken. If Rs.1,500/- is taken as the income and 10% as the disability and 17 as the multiplier, then the claimant will be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.30,600/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.19,300/- under the head of loss of earning power as well as amenities. Therefore, the disability compensation after reducing the same will be Rs.11,300/- as additional compensation. 4. Learned counsel would contend that some amount has been deducted from the medical bill. The Tribunal found that it was an advance. Therefore, I cannot interfere with the said M.A.C.A.1514/04 3 finding. On all other heads, the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and therefore, the appeal is disposed of awarding an additional compensation of Rs.11,300/-. In the result, the M.A.C.A is partly allowed. The claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.11,300/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of the petition till realisation and the first respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. smp