IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1116 of 2005(D) ------------------------ OPMV.1883/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- RAJU, OTTAPLACKAL HOUSE, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL SRI.K.N.CHATHUKUTTY SRI.ROY VANCHIPURACKAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. JOHN JACOB, PADAPPURACKAL HOUSE, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 1116 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(M.V) No. 1883 of 2000, which is a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was awarded a total amount of Rs. 96,800/- as compensation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would raise five points before us. Firstly he would contend that the treatment expenses comes to Rs.11,942/- But what was awarded is only Rs.10,000/- Secondly it is contended that for calculating compensation towards permanent disability, the income taken is Rs.1,750/- His income should have been fixed at Rs.3,000/- M.A.C.A.No. 1116 of 2005 2 The appellant was working in a toddy shop. He would also tap coconut trees, it is contended. In this context it is contended that the appellant was aged 37 years and the proper multiplier that is to be adopted is 16, instead of 15. 4. Thirdly it is contended that the appellant was hospitalised for 39 days and as an out-patient he had to go to the hospital for 60 days. But he was granted only Rs.1,500/- towards bystander's expenses. Fourthly the counsel contended that the appellant was awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Lastly he contended that the appellant had produced evidence to show that Rs.6,000/- has been expended towards transportation charges. But he was granted only Rs.1,500/- Towards extra nourishment he was granted Rs.500/- which is too low. 5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that as far as the disability of the appellant is concerned, it may be true that the multiplier should have been 16. But he points out that there is no evidence to enhance the monthly income. Over and above M.A.C.A.No. 1116 of 2005 3 the amount awarded towards permanent disability, the Tribunal has illegally awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning capacity, which is against the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court. As far as bystander's expenses is concerned, Rs.15,00/- was granted. For pain and sufferings, the appellant claimed Rs.25,000/- and the Tribunal has granted Rs.20,000/- 6. In this case, we are considering the question as to what is the just compensation to be awarded. In this context we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the appellant has been illegally granted Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of earning capacity. Even if we are taking the income of the appellant as Rs.2000/-, (there is no evidence) and applying the multiplier 16 the total compensation under the head disability would come to Rs.46,000/- The appellant has already been granted an amount of Rs.37,800/- towards permanent disability and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. In these circumstances we do not see any reason to enhance the compensation under any of the heads. M.A.C.A.No. 1116 of 2005 4 The appeal fails and is dismissed. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm