IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 340 of 2006(A) ---------------------------------------- OPMV.1520/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: AMBAYYA, S/O.SELVAM, KURISSADY HOUSE, POOPPARA, SANTHANPARA.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.JEFRIN MANUEL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. PRATHISH.P.K, S/O.KUNJAPPAN, PANACHITHADATHIL HOUSE, MULLAKKANAM KARA, RAJAKKADU.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. K.R.JINS SEBASTIAN,S/O.DEVASSIA, VATTAVANAL HOUSE, VELLIAMATTOM, ELAMDESAM.P.O, THODUPUZHA. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, JASMINE BUILDINGS, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.340 of 2005 --------------------------------- JUDGMENT Balachandran, J. The appellant, a pedestrian, who was hit down by the autorickshaw driven by the first respondent owned by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent, claimed compensation for the injuries sustained to him in the accident which took place on 6.12.2000 at about 6.30 p.m. 2. The first respondent resisted the claim contending that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the appellant himself and in any event, compensation, if any, payable has to be paid by the third respondent insurer. The third respondent contended that the first respondent was not duly licensed to drive the vehicle and therefore conditions of policy are violated and further that the compensation claimed is excessive. MACA 340/06 2 3. The Tribunal considered the case in the light of the evidence adduced and found that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the first respondent in driving the autorickshaw insured by the third respondent and awarded an amount of Rupees One lakh as compensation with 6% interest per annum. The claimant has come up in appeal being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claiming enhancement. 4. It is contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that Exhibits A8 and A10 would go to show that the age of the appellant was below 55; that multiplier of 11 should have been adopted and that the income of the appellant should have been fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. 5. The appellant was a coolie and the claim is that he was earning Rs.150/- per day. It is not at all likely that he will be having job on all days. The accident has taken place in the year 2000 and considering the wages of a labourer eight years MACA 340/06 3 back, we are of the view that the monthly income of the appellant should have been fixed at Rs.2,500/- and however, not at Rs.1,500/- per month. The appellant being aged 55 and the second schedule is only a guideline, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for having fixed 8 as the multiplier. Percentage of disability certified by the Medical Board in Exhibit A12 has been rightly accepted by the Tribunal. The compensation that is to be paid to the appellant for permanent disability and for loss of earning power consequent on fixing of his monthly income at Rs.2,500/- would, therefore, be Rs.48,000/- (2500 x 12 x 20/100 x 8). The Tribunal has granted only Rs.30,000/- under that head. The appellant would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.18,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of earning power. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of earnings for six month. The appellant had loss of earning for ten months, as he was having fracture and could not MACA 340/06 4 attend to the normal work as he was having plaster cast and was having ailments also which are associated with serious injuries sustained to him. Hence, towards loss of earnings for ten months, we award an amount of Rs.25,000/-. The amount of Rs.9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal has to be deducted therefrom and consequently, the amount to which the appellant would be entitled on that count will be Rs.16,000/-. Thus, the appellant will be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.34,000/-. The third respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the above amount with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, the appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. (J.B.Koshy, Judge) 24th September, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv