IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 887 of 2008(D) ------------------------------- OPMV.554/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : ------------------------------- ABOOBACKER, S/O.MUHAMMED PALLATHUPARA HOUSE, NELLIMATTOM P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : -------------------------------------- * 1. MANOJ RATHINAM, S/O.RATHINA SWAMI CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMANNOOR P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM 2. T.K.NIZAR, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY ALI THADATHIL HOUSE, PAREEKANNI P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. MUVATTUPUZHA 4. SANI, S/O.ITTIAVIRA NEDUMPURATHU HOUSE, KAVALANGADU NELLIMATTOM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM 5. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ELENGICAL PLAZA, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR - R5 SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN - R3 * THE NAME OF R1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 24.10.2008 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 887 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) 554/04. The claimant, claiming to be a 51 year old man, sustained injuries in a road accident. His injury is pertaining to the knee. He was admitted in the hospital on 13.9.03 and discharged on 20.9.03. Again he was admitted in the hospital on 16.10.03 and discharged on 18.10.03 which was followed by physiotherapy. The last review was on 12.11.03. The Tribunal accepted the disability as such but only applied a multiplier of 8. 2. I feel the Tribunal has fell into error when there was no specific contention disputing the age of the person. Documents produced in the case, which includes medical records as well as police records, would show that he was only aged 51 years. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal should not have jumped to the conclusion that he must be considered under the age group of 55 to 60. Therefore the matter requires interference. 3. I consider his age between 50 and 55 and use the multiplier of 11. Learned counsel would further contend that the income of the person should be taken as Rs.4,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/-. There is no evidence MACA No. 887/08 2 on either way. The Tribunal has fixed an approximate income and had calculated the compensation. In the absence of concrete evidence, it may not be justifiable on the part of this court to interfere with such a factual finding. When the income is taken as Rs.24,000/- per annum and disability at 6% using the multiplier of 11, the total entitlement would come to Rs.15,840/- out of which Rs.11,520/- is already granted for permanent disability thereby making the claimant entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.4,320/-. It has also to be stated that the Tribunal has given only 45 days actual loss of earning. The documents would reveal that he was finally reviewed on 12.11.03 whereas the accident had taken place on 13.9.03. So a minimum of three months loss of earning has to be granted. Thus the claimant will be entitled to an amount of Rs.6,000/- out of which Rs.3,000/- is already awarded. Therefore, I enhance the compensation for loss of earning by Rs.3,000/-. Learned counsel would further contend that when a serious injury like the knee injury is sustained, that too at the age of 50, there will be loss of amenities and enjoyment in life as well. The Tribunal has only awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- under that head. So, I enhance the compensation under that head by Rs.2,000/-. Learned counsel would further contend before me regarding the medical bills. But the Tribunal has considered it and said that there is no further treatment records after 12.11.03 and it was not prepared to accept the MACA No. 887/08 3 ayurvedic treatment records. I am also not inclined to accept it because one cannot be sure about these documents unless they are proved. Therefore, the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.9,320/-. There is also a contention that the interest is only awarded from the date of award and not from the date of petition. It is incorrect. The Tribunal should have used the discretion to award the interest atleast from the date of petition. Therefore I modify the date of interest from the date of petition till realisation. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.9,320/- with 8.5% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. Similarly the award already passed by the Tribunal also will carry interest at the rate of 8.5% from the date of petition till realisation and not from the date of award. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 887/08 4