IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 330 of 2003 ------------------------- OPMV.2543/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- RAJAN @ RAJAGOPALAN, S/O. RAVUNNI NAIR, RESIDING AT CHERIAMVEETTIL POLLAYIL HOUSE, THRIKKULAM, THIRURANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.R.RAJA RAJA VARMA SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SMT.G.GEETHISHA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. T. SOMAN, S/O. KUNHUNNI, RESIDING AT KARIPPURATH HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH AUTOMOBILE BUILDING, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & K.P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No 330 of 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J. Appellant-claimant sustained injuries in an accident due to the negligence of the first respondent driver of the motor cycle insured with the second respondent Insurance Company. He claimed compensation of Rs 2,46,200/-. Tribunal has found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent driver of the motor cycle KLL 6682 but awarded only Rs 72,200/- inclusive of medical expenses. Only the quantum of compensation is disputed in this appeal. 2. The Tribunal found that the Insurance Company admitted the insurance coverage of the vehicle involved in the accident. It is stated in the written statement that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle. The Insurance MACA 330/03 2 Company did not file any appeal against the liability charged on it. Only the claimant who sustained injuries has filed the appeal. 3. Insured was 31 years old at the time of accident. Tribunal has fixed the multiplier of 17 applying the guidelines of the second schedule. We therefore see no error in the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. According to the appellant, he was koolie by profession. An amount of Rs 1,250/- was fixed as monthly income by the Tribunal holding that notional income of an Indian fixed by the Parliament is Rs 1,250/- per month. Thus Rs 15,000/- was fixed as the annual income. It is true that apart from the claim no documentary evidence was produced by the claimant to show that he was getting Rs 2,250/- per month. There was no counter affidavit also. He was maintaining a family. He was aged 31. We are of the opinion that at least Rs 2,000/- ought to have been fixed as monthly income of the claimant. As a result of the accident he had brain injury and subdural haematoma, parital cremicious. There was subdural haematoma which was evacuated and he has retrograde amnesia. He had recurrent attacks of fits, postural vertigo etc. Doctor of Medical College Hospital, Calicut certified that there is 40% disability as it would affect his ability to do the work. Since the MACA 330/03 3 certificate was issued not in the prescribed form Tribunal did not accept the certificate but fixed the percentage of disability at 10%. The doctor who was examined in court to prove the medical certificate stated that at the time of issuance of the medical certificate forms were not prescribed. Considering the evidence adduced by the appellant the Tribunal should have fixed 20% as the percentage of disability for calculating the compensation. If the disability is taken as 20% the compensation payable will be Rs 81,600/-, (2000 x 12x 20/100 x 17). Tribunal has awarded only Rs 25,500/-. Therefore we award an additional amount of Rs 56,100/-. Tribunal also found that the appellant was unable to do any work for six months and awarded compensation for loss earning for six months taking into account Rs 1,250/- as his monthly income. Since we have refixed the monthly income as Rs 2,000/- he is entitled to get Rs 750/- more per month. Thus appellant is entitled to get an additional amount of Rs 4,500/- on that count. Compensation awarded under other heads is found to be reasonable. We therefore award an additional compensation of Rs 60,600/-. The above amount would be deposited by the second respondent with 7% interest from the date of petition till date of deposit. On depositing the amount appellant is allowed to withdraw MACA 330/03 4 the same. The appeal is allowed as above. Sd/- J.B. KOSHY Judge Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 4/8/08 en [true copy]