IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 3047 of 2008() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1282/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): --------------------- BENNY,S/O.YOYAKY,AGED 29, RESIDING AT OORPAYIL HOUSE, THRIKKALATHOOR KARA,MULAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH SRI.T.R.SADEESAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MATHEW V,S/O.VARGHESE, PERICKAMATTOM HOUSE,NECHOOR P.O, PIRAVOM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. CHACKO,S/O.THOMMEN,PULICKAL HOUSE, EZHAKKARANAD KARA,MANEED VILLAGE. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, BRANCH OFFICE,TRIPUNITHURA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON 13/01/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.Ramachandran Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ==================================== M.A.C.A.No.3047 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Ravindran,J. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1282 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. The motor cycle which he was riding collided with the jeep owned by the first respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured by the third respondent. The appellant who was aged 29 years and was employed as Salesman in a toddy shop, claimed a total amount of Rs.7 lakhs as compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident. The Tribunal on an analysis of the evidence, oral and documentary available in the case, held that the appellant who did not possess a valid driving licence had also contributed to the accident and therefore the driver of the jeep was liable to pay only 85% of the compensation. Taking note of the fact that the appellant is continuing to work as Salesman in the toddy shop, the Tribunal awarded besides under other heads, compensation for disability only after the petitioner attains the age of 60 years. Including the sum of Rs.48,600/- awarded as compensation for disability, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,63,950/- as compensation, and after deducting 15% of the said amount towards contributory negligence, directed payment of the sum of Rs.2,24,450/- to the appellant together with interest thereon at 9.75% MACA 3047/08 -: 2 :- per annum from the date of petition till realisation. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The appellant contends that the compensation awarded under various heads is grossly inadequate and that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the disability assessed by the Medical Board, which is borne out by Ext.A15 disability certificate. 2. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by Sri.K.Jaju Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The award passed by the Tribunal discloses that taking note of the period of hospitalisation and the fact that the petitioner was forced to remain absent for a period of sixteen months, the sum of Rs.70,802.75 was awarded as compensation for loss of earnings. The Tribunal also awarded compensation towards transportation expenses, expenses for engaging a bystander and for pain and suffering. The Tribunal has also awarded the medical expenses incurred by the appellant in full. The only serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is as regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for permanent disability. The Tribunal noticed that on account of the accident, the appellant did not loose his job. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal awarded compensation for disability reckoning the probable income which he would have earned after attaining the age of superannuation. The Tribunal while accepting the disability assessed by the Medical Board awarded compensation for disability on the basis that the appellant MACA 3047/08 -: 3 :- would have earned an income of Rs.3,000/- per mensem after attaining the age of superannuation. Besides the sum of Rs.48,600/- which was thus awarded as compensation for permanent disability, the Tribunal has also awarded another sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities. Towards expenses for future treatment, the Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation. In our considered opinion, on the materials on record, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just or fair. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be meager or inadequate and we find no reason to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in-limine. C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 10/1 MACA 3047/08 -: 4 :-