IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1831 of 2007() ------------------------------------ (AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.10.2006 IN OPMV NO.628/99 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA, WAYANAD) ........................ APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- JINU JOSEPH,S/O.JOSEPH MATHEW, THRIPTHI HOUSE,THAZHE ARAPETTA, MEPPADI P.O, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.3: ------------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, NOORANAL BUILDINGS,S.BATHERY. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.1831 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the insurance company. The appeal is against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that as against the claim for Rs.7 lakhs only Rs.1,84,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal and that too with interest at 6 percent. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that there is disability of 11 percent and the income is taken at Rs.1,800/- per month. There is oral evidence of petitioner as Pw1. It is further contended that the Tribunal has not granted compensation towards loss of amenities and towards pain and suffering only Rs.7,000/- is granted. It is also contended that the amount of compensation awarded towards transportation is inadequate. 3. Learned counsel for the insurance company MACA 1831/2007 -2- supported the award. 4. The first question to be considered is with regard to the income. There is evidence of the appellant. The accident took place on 29.8.1999. We feel that we can take the income at Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.1,800/-. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered which included fracture shaft of right femur the appellant can be granted compensation for loss of earning for three months. On such count the appellant would be entitled to Rs.4,200/- more under loss of earning. 5. We are not inclined to enhance the percentage of disability. We went through the certificate. It is not whole body disability. Therefore we are not enhancing the percentage of disability. 6. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the after effects, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for loss of amenities. We award Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. We also feel that having regard to the nature of injuries suffered the appellant should have been granted Rs.10,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. MACA 1831/2007 -3- We award Rs.3,000/- more on this account. 7. We further notice that the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,448/- more under the head disability on the basis of higher income which we have adopted. We also feel that the appellant should be granted some more amount towards transportation charges. On the whole the appellant is awarded Rs.20,000/- more. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that grant of 6 percent interest is inadequate. We award interest at the rate of 7.5 percent from the date of petition till date of realisation on the amount already awarded. We allow the appeal in part and the appellant is allowed to realise Rs.20,000/- more with interest at 7.5 percent from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the respondent. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS