IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1803 of 2007(A) ------------------------------- MVOP.1304/2001 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------------- SANKARAN, S/O.KOCHUKUTTAN, KOPPATTIL HOUSE, PAZHAYI DESOM, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. SUDHEESH, S/O.RAGHAVAN, NATTASSERY HOUSE, PAZHAYI DESOM, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., GURUVAYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R.2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1803 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of August, 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.(MV)1304/01. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.26,440/-. A perusal of the documents would show that he had sustained fracture on rib Nos.2,3,4 and 5 on the left side. A perusal of the award would reveal that though he contended that he was a railway employee and had lost earning of Rs.21,000/- he did not even produce a solitary piece of paper to show what type of leave he has availed and whether he has lost any income. Even then the Tribunal awarded him Rs.4,500/- towards loss of earnings. Similarly, it can be seen that if he is a railway employee he will continue till the age of 60 and for calculating the disability compensation the appropriate multiplier to be used in such cases is only 5 and not 8. But the Tribunal has taken the multiplier at 8. So these factors M.A.C.A. 1803 OF 2007 -:2:- would reveal that more than sufficient compensation has been granted to him. So I find it is a just and reasonable compensation and therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-