IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 819 of 2005() ------------------------------- OPMV.1077/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT :- -------------------------------------- VINCENT GEORGE, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 24 YEARS, ARAKKAL MANDALAM, NADUVIL (VIA), THALIPPARAMBA, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN ARAKKAL VARGHESE, S/O. DEVASSIA, AGED 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.P :- --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K. RAMAN, S/O. NANU NAIR, VALLATHANATHAZHEKUNI HOUSE, MELOOR AMSOM, DESOM, MELOOR P.O., CHENGOTTUKAVU, KOILANDY. 2. P.V. PAULOSE, RAILWAY CONTRACTOR, PUTHAN VEETTIL HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW MUNICIPAL BUILDING, TRIPUNITHURA. R1 BY SRI.T.R.RAVI R2 BY SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.P.S.MURALI FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.819 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January 2011 J U D G M E N T N.K.Balakrishnan, J. The claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery is the appellant. He sustained serious injuries in a motor accident which took place on 22.10.1998 at about 9.15 AM while he was travelling in the bus bearing Registration No.KL-01/C 2039 from Kozhikode to Kakkody. It was stated that a tipper lorry came at high speed from the opposite side and dashed against the bus and thus the appellant sustained fracture to the right arm, shoulder etc. It was stated that he was hospitalised for 82 days. 2. The factum of the accident is admitted. The offending vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence more particularly Ext.X1 certificate issued by the M.A.C.A. No.819 of 2005 -: 2 :- Medical Board, awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,51,200/-. 3. The appellant contends that the court below should have adopted 17 as the multiplier since the injured as on the date of accident was only 24 years. It is also contended that monthly income of Rs.3,000/- adopted by the Tribunal is too low considering the depreciation in money value. Compensation awarded on other heads is also inadequate, the appellant contends. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The main point that has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that instead of reckoning Rs.3,000/- as the net monthly income the Tribunal should have taken at least Rs.5,000/-. The injured claimant was a final year L.L.B student studying in Law College, Kozhikode. It is contended that with in a few months he could have completed his L.L.B and could have started his carrier as an advocate but this unfortunate incident has completely doomed M.A.C.A. No.819 of 2005 -: 3 :- his carrier. The learned counsel submitted that because of injuries, the appellant is not in a position to speak well and so he cannot practice as an advocate. 5. The fact that the appellant had sustained serious injuries as noted in paragraph 10 of the judgment of the learned Tribunal is not disputed. Similarly, the fact that the appellant had undergone treatment as an inpatient in Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for 82 days as borne out from the discharge summary issued from the hospital is also not in serious dispute. Ext.X1 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. The Medical Board has assessed the disability at 48%. Grounds for arriving at that percentage as noted in detail in Ext.X1 are relied upon by the Tribunal for accepting the percentage of disability suggested by the Board as per Ext.X1. The respondents did not challenge the same. 6. The next question is whether the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- adopted by the Tribunal is low as contended by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that atleast Rs.5,000/- should be taken as the monthly income. M.A.C.A. No.819 of 2005 -: 4 :- It is also pointed out that since the appellant was then aged only 24 years the multiplier should be 17 as shown in the schedule. Considering all aspects, we find that the monthly income for the purpose of assessing compensation on account of disability caused can be taken as Rs.4,000/-. Thus, the amount of compensation for the disability caused and the consequent loss of earning power would come to Rs.3,91,680/- (4000 x 12 x 17 x 48/100). Since the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable amounts on other heads, we find no reason to interfere with the same. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs.4,83,680/-. The said amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt