IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 600 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.433/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- KUNJEESU, S/O.ITTIACHAN, THAZHUNGA HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE, PORUNNAMKUNNU DESOM, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. C.V.JOSE, (DRIVER), S/O.C.A.VARUTHUNNY @ C.A.VAREED, CHAKKALA HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE, PORUNNAMUKUNNU DESOM, THRISSUR DIST. 2. SHAMMY PAUL, (OWNER), S/O.E.V.PAUL, ELAMBALLASSERY HOUSE, CHALAKUDY. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, CITY HEIGHT BUILDING, CHALAKUDY. ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 600 OF 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV) No.433/2001. The claimant was a pillion rider who sustained injuries in a road accident. The injuries are a fracture on the clavicle, pain on the left iliac crest, abrasion on the forehead and incised wound therein and also abrasion on the lateral to the left eye ball. He is a coolie worker and his monthly income is claimed at the rate of Rs. 4,000/-. The tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs. 1,500/-. Taking into consideration a disability of 3% applied a multiplier of 15 and awarded compensation of Rs. 19,908/-. The Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability on the ground that he was a pillion rider and the policy issued was only an Act only policy. So far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, as the policy issued is only an Act only Policy where no wider premium is paid and therefore in the light of the dictum laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884], the Insurance Company is not bound to pay the amount. M.A.C.A.No. 600/2007 -2- 2. So far as enhancement is concerned, I think only under some heads enhancement is necessary as on the basis of loss of earning. For a 42 year old man his income is taken only as Rs. 1,500/-. He was examined as PW1 also. Considering the year, age and the nature of work, at least a minimum income of Rs. 2,000/- can be taken. When it is taken, towards loss of earning for two months the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 1,000/-. When Rs. 2,000/- is taken as income, the disability compensation would come to Rs. 10,800/- out of which 8,100/- is already granted. Therefore balance will comes to Rs. 2,700/-. Thereby the claimant is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 3,700/-. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for the same. In the result, the M.A.C.A. is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 3,700/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. Respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. The Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm