IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1234 of 2004 B ----------------------- OPMV.388/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT: --------------------------------------- JAYAN, S/O. ARUJUNAN, AGED 44, RESIDING AT PANAKKARA VEEDU, NEAR LPS, PUNNUMANGALAM, MELANGODU P.O., PAPPANAMCODE, NEMOM, VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE MATHEW, MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., RESIDING AT T.C.5/2611 (10), NEAR TTC KOWDIYAR. 2. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER MALANGARA BUILDINGS, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. NO. 1234 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th July, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As against the claim of Rs.3 Lakhs, the appellant was awarded a total sum of Rs.1,05,050/=. Challenge is against the quantum. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that Ext.A7 would show that the appellant had monthly income of Rs.3,873/=, but however, only Rs.2,000/= is taken. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was working as a Peon in an Association. Secondly, he would contend that the Disability Certificate is issued by which it is MACA.1234/04 2 certified that the appellant is having 21 per cent permanent disability, but the tribunal has erred in taking only 15 per cent as the disability. It is further contended that on account of the injuries, the appellant lost earning for twenty months. The tribunal has given only Rs.10,000/= towards loss of income at the rate of Rs.2000/= per month. He further points out that the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is only Rs.20,000/= and loss of amenities only Rs.10,000/=. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would support the Award. 4. As far as the question relating to income is concerned, the appellant was working as a Peon and the accident took place in the year 1998. The person who issued the Certificate is not examined. It is true that the appellant has gone into the box. Having regard to the employment, we feel that the income need not be revised. 5. As far as the question of disability is concerned, no doubt, there is a Certificate issued by a Doctor certifying 21 per cent disability as per Mc Brides Scale, but the tribunal has taken MACA.1234/04 3 15 per cent. The Doctor has fixed 100 per cent temporary disability from the date of injury till 5.9.1998, 50 per cent temporary disability from the date of injury till 5.5.1999 and 25 per cent temporary disability from the date of injury till 5.9.1999. Even according to the appellant, the appellant was working after 20 months and apparently drawing the same salary. The disability if at all, would arise after retirement. In the light of that and having regard to the per centage of fifteen, we see no reason to increase the per centage. 6. But, the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation under three heads. Firstly, we feel that the appellant can be given compensation towards loss of income for two months more. We award Rs.4,000/= towards loss of earning. The injuries certified include Galeazzi fracture dislocation (R) side, Fracture shaft of femur (R) side, Intercondylar fracture femur (R) and Intercondylar fracture Tibia (R). Having regard to the nature of the injuries and treatment, we feel that the appellant should be awarded Rs.5,000/= more towards pain and suffering. MACA.1234/04 4 Also, in the nature of the injuries, the appellant has to be awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/= more towards loss of amenities. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.19,000/= with 7.5 per cent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the second respondent Insurance Company. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge