IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 42 of 2003(B) --------------------- OPMV.746/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- SUKUMAR B.R., S/O. RAGHAVAN, BLAVELIL HOUSE, NETHAJI ROAD, EDAVANAKKAD P.O., KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) ` RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. K.M.BOSE, S/O. MADHAVAN, KUNNAPPILLYCHALIL HOUSE, H.NO.VII/895, PEZHAKKAPPILLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. REGHU M.K., S/O. KRISHNAN, MAVELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, WEST OF G.H.S., EDAVANAKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3.ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NO.I, RUKYA BAGH, RAVIPURAM, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-16, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 42 of 2003 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellant/Claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 18.9.2000. While he was walking through the public road, he was knocked by an autorickshaw driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent insurance company. The tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent and since there was valid insurance, the insurance company was directed to deposit the amount, but, the total amount originally awarded was Rs.1,26,500/- and that was thereafter revised after correcting calculation mistake to Rs.1,62,500/-. The claim petition was for Rupees Four lakhs. Only the quantum of compensation is disputed in this appeal. First contention raised by the appellant was that he was aged 27 years. Only 10 was taken as the multiplier by the tribunal. According to him, a higher multiplier should be taken. Under the second schedule, 18 is the multiplier for an accident victim aged 25 to 30 years. The appellant has a case that in view of M.F.A.No.42/2003 2 the increase of life span, a higher multiplier should be taken. A three-member Bench of the Apex Court in Smt.Supe Dei and others v. M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 451) held that even though second schedule is framed for assessing the compensation in a claim under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it can be taken for guidance in awarding compensation when claims are filed under section 166 also. In APSRTC v. M. Pentaiah Chary (2007 AIR SCW 5689) the Supreme Court held that in the absence of exceptional circumstances, second schedule should be taken as a guidance for fixing multiplier. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we fix 18 as the multiplier. The claimant has a case that he is a carpenter by profession and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. From the first information statement, it can be seen that he was a carpenter by profession. Oral evidence was also adduced to show that he was a carpenter by profession. It was argued that a carpenter will get more than Rs.150/- per day and he was getting the same. The tribunal has taken only Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income. The incident occurred in 2000. Being a carpenter, he may get a minimum of Rs.100/- per day and he will get more than 25 days' work in a month. Hence, we fix Rs.2,500/- as the monthly income. As far as injuries are concerned, eye ball of M.F.A.No.42/2003 3 his left eye was lost and when there is complete loss of sight in the left eye, it is a disfiguration. The tribunal has fixed 40% disability. In this connection, we also refer to the First Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act wherein also 40% is the loss of earning for loss of eye sight with disfiguration. We are not enhancing the percentage of disability assessed by the tribunal. If that be so, compensation payable will be Rs.2500 x 12 x 18 x 40 = 100 Rs.2,16,000/- instead of Rs.96,000/-. So, additional compensation payable will be Rs.1,20,000/-. It is submitted that the tribunal did not grant any compensation for loss of marriage prospects and disfiguration, but, 40% disability is taken into account considering the disfiguration also. The tribunal has found that he was under treatment for four months and he was unable to do any work and he was granted four months' loss of earning. Since we have increased the monthly income by Rs.500/-, he will get Rs.2,000/- more under that head. Even though it was argued that compensation granted under other heads are very meagre, considering the total compensation awarded, we are not enhancing the compensation under other heads. The additional amount of compensation of Rs.1,22,000/- should be deposited by the third respondent with M.F.A.No.42/2003 4 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. Appeal is allowed partly. J.B.Koshy Judge P.N.Ravindran Judge vaa M.F.A.No.42/2003 5 J.B. KOSHY AND P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ. ------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 42 of 2003 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:2nd July, 2008