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 SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 230 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.1336/1993 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OO(MV): --------------------------------------------- PAULY, S/O. OUSEPH, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA-KIZHAKKUMMUARI VILLAGE, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN OP(MV): -------------------------------------------- 1. P.A.ABOOBACKER, PUKKALIL HOUSE, PERINGAZHA, H.M.T. COLONY, P.O. KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ABOOBACKER, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, MATTATHIL HOUSE, THACHAMVELIL-MALA ROAD, KANJEERPADY DESOM, THRIKKAKARA NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., ELOOR SOUTH, UDYOGAMANDAL. ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 230 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant in a road accident. Even though the car in which the appellant travelled hit behind a moving goods vehicle, MACT held that the accident is on account of negligence of the goods vehicle. We are unable to uphold this finding because accident is obviously on account of negligent driving by the taxi driver who, without maintaining clearance from the vehicle going in front, could not stop the vehicle when the vehicle going in front stopped abruptly. The impact of the accident, which led to serious injury to the appellant, one of the passengers in the car and death of another passenger, clearly indicates that the car was driven at enormous speed at 11.30 p.m. in the night when accident happened. However, we do not think this should disentitle the appellant for enhancement of compensation because he 2 was a passenger in a taxi car which was covered by insurance policy issued by the same company which insured the goods vehicle involved in the accident. 2. So far as enhancement of compensation is concerned, appellant's counsel submitted that income adopted is very low because appellant was a qualified plumber with a certificate. Eventhough counsel for the insurance company submitted that Rs. 1000/- taken as monthly income for a plumber in 1993 is reasonable, we feel income calls for enhancement because plumber's job is a technical job which entitles payment for a skilled worker. We therefore refix the income of the appellant at Rs. 1500/- which will entitle him for additional compensation for permanent disability of 15% by Rs. 15,300/-. Similarly for loss of temporary earning, appellant is entitled to further sum of Rs. 3000/-. MACT has granted compensation for loss of enjoyment and amenities in life only at Rs. 8900/-. Considering the age of the appellant and the serious nature of injuries sustained by him, we feel appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation for loss of enjoyment in life. We enhance the compensation under this head by 3 Rs. 6700/-. Therefore the additional compensation of Rs. 25,000/- granted by us will carry interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of deposit. Appeal is allowed in part as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C. K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk 4