IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1969 of 2006(D) ----------------------- OPMV.1714/2000 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- P.P.RAVI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMBOOTY, P.V.HOUSE, N/R HIGH SCHOOL, MUZHAPILANGAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.SHIVADAS, S/O.CANDUKUTTY, KUNHIPARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAYAM MALABAR, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, (OWNER OF BUS NO.KL-13 E 1879). 2. UNNIKRISHNAN T.V., S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR, THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY-3, (DRIVER OF BUS NO.KL-13 E 1879, D.L.NO.12/89/CT). 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KANNUR DISTRICT, (POLICY NO.228902). ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. NO: 1969 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th Day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT K. M. Joseph J. The appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs.4 lakhs and he is awarded Rs.1,09,000/- (rounded of figure). Aggrieved by the adequacy of compensation awarded, this petition is filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the appellant is working as an Assistant in Life Insurance Corporation of India. He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,017/-. He has produced his salary certificate as Ext.A10. However, in calculating the disability of compensation, the Tribunal has taken only M.A.C.A . NO: 1969 OF 2006 :2: Rs.1,500/- as his monthly income. Further, it is complained that the Tribunal without any reason has fixed the disability at 5%. By Ext.A13 the disability of the appellant has been fixed at 12%. It is further pointed out that only Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities. Rs.5,000/- awarded only towards disfigurement. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the award. 5. The first question to be considered is what is the income and what is the percentage of disability to be considered for calculating the disability. The appellant is employed with Life Insurance Corporation of India and drawing monthly salary with other allowances. The disability, if at all, will arise after retirement. In such circumstances the multiplier to be taken is 8. We feel that, in the nature of the employment in which the appellant is engaged, we can accept as Rs.2,500/- per month as the income. It is true that the Tribunal has given some reason for reducing the percentage of disability from 12% to 5%. The Tribunal in particular opines that M.A.C.A . NO: 1969 OF 2006 :3: the occupational disability of the appellant is not assessed. PW2 is the doctor who examined the appellant. He would say that the appellant has difficulty in alighting, driving and speaking etc. The index finger has partial anklyon at MCP joint, middle and ring finger right hand. It is not specified as to whether it is proximal or distial. Nonetheless there is a medical certificate issued by Medical Board. The certificate would show that the appellant was having partial ankylosis right wrist, 10 degree short of full extension and 30 degree terminal limitation of flexion. Partial anklyon at MCP joint of index finger. No doubt the wound scar may not affect the earning capacity as such. On this basis, the disability can be fixed at 8% instead of 5%. The appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.19,200/- in place of Rs.12,000/- awarded. Thus the appellant is entitled to Rs.7,200/- more under the said head. 6. The appellant was in hospital for 59 days. According M.A.C.A . NO: 1969 OF 2006 :4: to the appellant, he underwent 4 surgeries. We feel that in the nature of the injuries and also the treatment he underwent, the appellant should have been awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. We also feel that in the nature of injuries and the after effects of the incident, the appellant should be awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. The appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.22,200/- more. Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.22,200/- more along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the third respondent. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/