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. 279 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.326/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- K.S. VINOD, S/O.SURENDRAN, LAKSHMY BHAVAN, VALAKKODU P.O., PUNALOOR. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW, S/O.VARGHESE, MARUTHOOR HOUSE, VETTOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. RENJITH V. MATHEW, S/O. M.V. MATHEW, DO. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R.3 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. 279 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant is the applicant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. He was awarded Rs.2,17,620/- with 9% interest. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri.Jacob P. Alex and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Shri.V.P.K. Panicker. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- as monthly salary. He relied on Ext.A15, which shows that he was in receipt of Rs.3,500/- p.m. at the time of the accident. The counsel points out that Ext.A14 certificate shows that the appellant is a Diploma holder in Automobile Engineering. Therefore, the amount should have been fixed at Rs.3,500/- p.m. His further contention M.A.C.A.No. 279 of 2007 2 is that though the Tribunal has taken the percentage of disability at 14% as certified in Ext.A13, issued by the Medical Board, Pathanamthitta, having regard to the injuries suffered and the consequences therefrom, his prospect has diminished and a higher percentage was warranted, it is contended. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards compensation for loss of earning for a period of five months and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for pain and sufferings. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, supported the award. 5. As far as his income is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that though Ext.A15 was produced, he has not given evidence. We noted that the accident was occurred in 1999. He was 23 years of age at that time. The Tribunal has already taken the income at Rs.2,000/- Having regard to the year of the accident and nature of evidence adduced, we find no reason to interfere with the amount fixed. 6. As far as his second contention is concerned, we feel that there is no scope for any further enhancement. What has been M.A.C.A.No. 279 of 2007 3 certified by the Medical Board, viz. 14%, as his disability, stands accepted by the Tribunal and appropriate multiplier has been applied. He was granted Rs. 57,120/- We also notice that the appellant was granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for inconvenience and loss of amenities. This is besides Rs.25,000/- given towards pain and sufferings. He has been awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards future treatment. On the whole, we would think that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and it does not call for interference. 7. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm