IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 2276 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.1442/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT -------------------------------- MADHUKUMAR, S/O.SIVARAMAPILLAI, GEETHAMVEETIL (PUTHEN VEEDU), POLLATHAI P.O., MARARIKULAM SOUTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.III, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH NETTO, SILVER STAR BHAVAN, KAVANAD, KOLLAM. 2. JOB.A., S/O.JOSE MOUNT HOUSE, APSARA JUNCTION, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.T.R.S.KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.JUDE B.ALEX FOR R1 SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 2276 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: AUGUST 6, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) 1442/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. He sustained the following injuries in a motor accident that occurred on January 12, 2002 in front of Railway Quarters, Cherthala: “comminuted fracture of his right humerous, fracture of right radius and ulna, fracture of lateral condyle femur, fracture of right patella, fracture of tibia and fibula and right knee patelooctomy was done.” 2. The accident happened when the tanker lorry driven by the 2nd respondent dashed against a motorcycle which was ridden by the claimant with his wife as pillion rider. Alleging negligence against the 2nd respondent, the claimant filed the OP before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.16 lakhs against respondents 1 to 3, owner, driver and insurer of the offending lorry. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the offending lorry, remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd M.A.C.A. 2276 of 2007 2 respondent, insurer of the offending lorry, filed a written statement admitting the policy and further contended that there was also negligence on the part of the claimant. 4. This OP was tried along with another OP filed by the wife of the claimant and a common award was passed by the Tribunal. PW.1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A33 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting 3rd respondent. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,90,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and a cost of Rs.6000/-. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent is not challenged in this appeal. Therefore the only question which arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. M.A.C.A. 2276 of 2007 3 7. The break up of the compensation amount awarded is as under: loss of earning Rs. 24,000/- cost of medicine etc. 2,70,000/- transportation 16,000/- bystander's expenses 16,000/- extra nourishment 2,500/- damage to clothing 500/- pain and suffering 25,000/- loss of amenities 15,000/- permanent disability and loss of earning power 2,16,000/- future treatment 5,000/- 8. Counsel for the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation for the disability caused. The Tribunal took his percentage of disability as 30% and took his monthly income as Rs.4000/- and adopting a multiplier of 16 awarded Rs.2,16,000/- for the disability caused. The claimant produced Ext.A13 salary certificate issued from the Jithus Computer Centre, Mararikulam, showing that he was working as a computer instructor and was drawing a salary of Rs.5000/-. On the basis of this the Tribunal took his monthly income as Rs.4000/- which appears reasonable. As regards the percentage of disability, the Medical Board has assessed his percentage of disability as 50%. Ext.A18 is the said certificate. Taking into consideration the disabilities suffered by the claimant, we M.A.C.A. 2276 of 2007 4 feel that his percentage of disability can be reasonably fixed at 40%. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 16 is not seriously challenged. Thus calculated, for the disability caused the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,07,200/-. Thus, on this count the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.91,200/-. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore we are not disturbing the same. 9. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.91,200/-. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The 3rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-