IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1092 of 2004() ---------------------------------- OPMV.875/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION TAMIL NADU LTD.,REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER PALLAVANSALAI, CHENNAI-2. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH SYRIAC RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUKU, S/O. SUNDARAN, VAZHAVILAKAM VEEDU, METHUUKUMMAL P.O., KALIAKAVILA, K.K. DISTRICT. 2. JOSEPH RAJ, THIRUVAROOR, THENDAL NAGAR, HOUSE NO.81, THIRUVAROOR DT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.2446/2004 IN MACA NO.1092/2004 DISMISSED 09/07/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1092 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV)875/00. According to the claimant while he was riding on a scooter, a Transport bus owned by the appellant hit on his bicycle resulting in injuries to him. The Tribunal found the negligence on the part of the bus driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.40,400/- with 9% interest. It is against that decision the Corporation has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. So far as the negligence is concerned the anomaly pointed out was that while giving particulars he has mentioned it as a K.S.R.T.C. Bus and therefore the contention was taken up to the effect that the appellant's bus had not hit on him. But in the first information statement, the number of the bus with route of the bus has been very clearly indicated and therefore the Tribunal rightly rejected that contention. It was only the M.A.C.A. 1092 OF 2004 -:2:- evidence of PW1 that was available and the driver of the appellant did not enter the box to give any counter evidence. The Police also filed a charge sheet against the driver of the bus and therefore I do not propose to interfere with the finding on the question of negligence. 3. So far as the quantum is concerned, the appellant had sustained a fracture on the scapula. He was admitted in the Medical College Hospital from 13.7.00 and discharged on 20.7.00. He was aged 24 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal took his income at Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal also considered the disability certificate issued by one Doctor, Vimalnath but reduced it to 5% and calculated the compensation. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment undergone I think the percentage of 5% taken by the Tribunal is more than adequate. For a 24 year old man the Tribunal, even in 2000, had taken an income of Rs.2,000/- and had applied a multiplier of 17. So the permanent disability compensation is granted very liberally and therefore if any amount is awarded under the head of M.A.C.A. 1092 OF 2004 -:3:- loss of amenities in life, it will virtually amount to overlapping in the sense that the other factor is also taken into consideration while considering the permanent disability compensation. On all other heads the Tribunal has used its discretion and I do not want to interfere. Therefore the compensation has to be reduced by Rs.5,000/-. Similarly, the rate of interest is 9% which also has to be reduced to 7.5% in the light of the recent Apex Court's decision. Therefore the MACA is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified and the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.35,400/- with 7.5% interest on the said sum from 15.9.2000 till realisation from respondents 1 and 2 and the appellant is directed to deposit the amount within 60 days on receipt of the copy of the judgment. Other orders regarding the deposit etc. will be as directed by the Tribunal. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-