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 MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1055 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.643/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.JUNESH, S/O.LAKSHMANAN, AGED 26 YEARS, LAKSHMAN NIVAS, KUNNUMAL HOUSE, THANNADA, P.O.CHALA EAST, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN SRI.A.S.BENOY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. K.GOVINDAN, MATANKARA HOUSE, P.O.CHOVVA, KANNUR-6. 2. MATANKARA VINOD, DRIVER, S/O.GOVINDAN, CHELORA AMSOM, VALIYANNUR, P.O.VARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KANNUR. ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1055 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the disability suffered by the appellant who was only 19 years of age at the time of accident. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 2. The main contention raised by counsel for the appellant is that the income adopted is very low. He has contended that the appellant was a mechanic aged only 19 years at the time of the accident and the accident has led to 100% disability in as much as he has become a paraplegic. Counsel has taken us to the findings of the MACT whereunder appellant's condition in terms of the claim is confirmed. The appellant was treated in several places and he was taken three times to Manipal, outside Kerala, in Ambulance for treatment. Inspite of the protracted treatment, the Medical Board has certified 100% disability in earning and 70% disability in mobility. 2 3. On going through the award and after hearing the parties, we feel modification is required with regard to income because a mechanic in workshop would be able to earn atleast Rs.2,500/- per month. Taking Rs.2,500/- as monthly income and by applying the same multiplier, compensation for disability would be Rs.4,80,000/- as against Rs.2,88,000/- granted. Besides additional compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- under this head, we feel appellant is entitled to compensation for continued treatment and towards expenses for a bystander. Counsel for the appellant rightly pointed out that considering the condition of the appellant which shows no sign of improvement, appellant should have a permanent bystander and that he should be continuously on medication to prevent bed sore and other complications arising on account of his condition. Since the appellant is rather laid up on a permanent basis, we grant additional compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs towards expenses for future treatment and for a bystander. Counsel pointed out that the compensation granted towards transportation is low because three times he was taken in Ambulance to the Hospital in Karnataka. We grant additional 3 compensation of Rs.8,000/- under this head. The additional compensation of Rs.3.5 lakhs granted by us will carry the same rate of interest granted by the MACT for the original compensation from the date of application till date of payment. The MACT should arrange for deposit of the compensation amount, if possible in the Government Treasury on long term basis which fetches the appellant regular monthly interest. The MACT should release bulk amounts only on being convinced about the needs because what is required for the appellant is income on a regular basis in the form of interest on deposits. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms