IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 69 of 2005() --------------------- OPMV.248/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- VARKEY JOSE @ JOSE, S/O. VARKEY, RESIDING AT EDAPPATTU HOUSE, P.O. VAZHAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. BASKAR, S/O. SENKODAN, RESIDING AT BHAVANI CROSS ROAD, SANKIRI WEST P.O., SELAM, TAMILNADU. 2. MARAR, S/O. PAZHANI, RESIDING AT KANHAPURAM P.O., CHITHODE, 165, SASTRI ROAD, ERODE. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THIRUCHAMCODE, TAMILNADU. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ABRAHAM, S/O. JOSE, RESIDING AT PADAVILAM HOUSE, PUDUPPILLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 69 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. On th basis of the finding of composite negligence, the K.S.R.T.C. as well as the lorry involved in the accident have been directed to share the liability in a 50-50 ratio. This appeal is directed against the quantum. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was running a Grocery shop at the time of the accident. He complains that the amount which is awarded towards disability is calculated on the basis of low income taken and it requires enhancement. His income has been fixed at Rs.1,500/- He further points out that he was awarded Rs.5,000/- M.A.C.A.No. 69 of 2005 2 towards loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards pain an suffering. No amount is awarded towards future medical expenses. He was laid up for one year, but loss of earning was limited to six months. He further complains that though medical bills were produced for a sum of Rs.58,455/-, Rs.55,000/- only was awarded towards that count. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the order, we feel that the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation. Though the date of accident is in the year 1996, we cannot ignore the fact that the appellant has produced license to show that he was running a Grocery shop. He was examined himself. His income was fixed at Rs.1500/- We feel that Rs.1800/- can be fixed as his income. Therefore, the appellant will be entitled to a further sum of Rs.8,640/-, applying the same multiplier towards disability. 5. We also feel that the appellant is certainly entitled to Rs.3,500/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal. The appellant was in the hospital for 37 days. He suffered compound fracture of tibia (L), compound segmental fracture of tibia (R), fracture of nasal bone, M.A.C.A.No. 69 of 2005 3 lacerated wound upper lip right side and punctured wound on the right leg. We feel that th appellant can be given Rs.5,000/- more towards pain and sufferings. Likewise, we notice that the Tribunal has found that he needs support for walking. Both his legs wore an ugly appearance. We think that the appellant is entitled for Rs.5,000/- more for loss of amenities. The appellant is entitled for Rs.1800/- towards loss of earnings for six months on th basis of the increased income we have taken. For future medical expenses, we are awarding Rs.2,000/- Consequently the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.25,940/- which is rounded of to Rs.26000/- This will bear interest at the rat of 7.5% p.a. 6. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.26,000/- with 7.5% interest in the same proportion as is ordered by the Tribunal. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) tm Judge M.A.C.A.No. 69 of 2005 4