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 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 MACA.No. 1229 of 2010 -------------------------------- OPMV.774/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: PRADEEP KUMAR P.C., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, PARVATHY NILAYAM, P.O.KOLACHERY, KANNUR, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.K.KARUNAKARAN, S/O.R.KAMMARAN NAIR, AGED 67 YEARS, PARVATHY NILAYAM, P.O.KOLACHERY, KOLACHERY AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. MURALEEDHARAN .S., S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, SHANTHI BHAVAN, P.O.EACHUR, KANNUR. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2011 ALONG WITH MACA NO.2374/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.Basheer & P.Q.Barkath Ali, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.Nos.1229 & 2374 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Since these two appeals arise from the same award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. While the appellant in the first captioned appeal is the claimant, the appellant in the second is the owner cum driver of the two wheeler which had allegedly caused the accident. 2. The grievance of the appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal committed serious illegality in refusing to award reasonable compensation to him considering the nature of the injuries sustained by him. The owner/rider of the vehicle contends that the finding of the Tribunal that he did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident is totally erroneous in as much as he did in fact possess a licence. He has produced the original licence before us. MACA 1229 & 2374/10 2 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. Since the owner/rider has produced the licence, which, according to him, he possessed at the time of the accident, we do not propose to express any opinion on the said issue. In our view, this issue has to be necessarily considered by the Tribunal. But, since the appellant had failed to appear before the Tribunal, he can have the benefit of contesting the case only if he pays a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost payable to the Insurance Company. Appellant shall deposit the above sum of Rs.5,000/- before the Tribunal within one month from today, in which event, the finding entered by the Tribunal on the issue relating to liability shall stand set aside and the Tribunal shall re-consider the question of liability afresh. It is made clear that appellant and the Insurance Company shall be entitled to adduce further evidence in support of their rival contentions. The original licence produced by the appellant shall be returned to him by the Registry on furnishing photocopies of the entire pages of the licence before it. It is made further clear that the question of quantum need not be re-considered by the MACA 1229 & 2374/10 3 Tribunal and the claimant need not appear before the Tribunal any further. The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to him. 5. The case is remitted to the Tribunal for disposal in the above terms. If the appellant fails to remit the cost as directed above, the appeal will stand dismissed. The appellant and the Insurance Company shall appear before the Tribunal on April 30, 2011. The Tribunal shall dispose of the case on or before July 30, 2011. M.A.C.A.No.1229/2010 6. The only grievance of the appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal did not place any reliance on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 and Exhibits A11 and A12 while considering his monthly income. According to the appellant, he had been drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-, working as a Teacher in a parallel college. It is seen from the award that the Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2,500/-. In our view, the notional monthly income of the appellant can be taken as Rs.3,000/-. Since disability has been assessed by the medical board as 10%, we do not find any reason why the said MACA 1229 & 2374/10 4 percentage cannot be accepted. Therefore, the compensation payable under the head of disability to the appellant is re- calculated thus: 3000 x 12 x 10 x 18 ----------------------------- = 64, 800 100 Similarly, under the head of loss of earning, appellant shall be entitled to get Rs.9,000/- in lieu of Rs.7,500/-. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we award Rs.10,000/- under this head. Thus, appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.37,600/- (Rupees Thirty seven thousand six hundred only). In all other respects, the award passed by the Tribunal as regards quantum is confirmed. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (A.K.Basheer, Judge) (P.Q.Barkath Ali, Judge) tkv