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 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 1429 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.227/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV): --------------------------------------------- SHIJU, AGED 25, S/O. VARGHESE, VALLOORAN HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, AIMURY KARA, PIN-683 544. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAJEEV SRI.M.V.JOY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV): ------------------------------------- 1. P.M. ALI, S/O.MUHAMMED, PACHAYIEKAL HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, VIA. B.M.C., COCHIN-21. 2. T.M.ABDUL KHADER, THEKKE THAMARACHALIL HOUSE, VADAVUCODEU P.O., VIA. B.M.C., COCHIN-21. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ERNAKULAM BRANCH-I, CUSTOMER CARE BRANCH, P.B.NO.1797, CHITTOOR ROAD, SOUTH JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM. 4. RASMI V., D/O.VENUGOPALAN, AMBATTU VEEDU, P.M.C. V/2158, KANJIRAKKADU, PERUMBAVOOR. 5. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R5 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1429 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard counsel for the appellant and separate standing counsel appearing for two insurance companies, namely, respondents 3 and 5. Eventhough counsel for the third respondent submitted that accident is on account of contributory negligence by drivers of both vehicles and prima facie there is case for it because accident happened on the wide MC road, we do not think we should disturb the finding of the MACT that the truck caused the accident because, even if it leads to advantage of one insurance company in the same field, whole exercise will only lead to division of liability between two public sector companies. Therefore we do not want to disturb the finding of the MACT on this. So far as appellant's claim for enhancement of compensation is concerned, we find some force in the contention because employment as driver is accepted by MACT and injuries are such that they will affect appellant's earning power as driver. Eventhough percentage of 2 disability certified by the doctor was 18% MACT reduced the same to 10%. Whether disability is 10% or 18% we do not think appellant will be permanently disabled from working as driver. However, considering the disability, appellant may not be able to work long hours or undertake strenuous journeys. Considering all these, we enhance the total compensation by Rs. 25,000/- with direction to the insurance company to pay original and additional compensation with interest 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of deposit. Appeal is allowed to the above extent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C. K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk 3