IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 106 of 2008(C) OPMV.480/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA DATED 9/12/2005 ........................................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ALIYAS E.V., AGED 46, S/O. VARKEY, EDAPPATTU HOUSE, VALARA P.O., MANNAMKANDAM. BY ADV.MR.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: 1. KUNJUKUNJU, S/O. ALI, VETTOLI HOUSE, VALARA P.O., MANNAMKANDAM. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. R2 BY ADV. MR.S.MAMMU THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No.106 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of NOVEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R.RAMAN, J 1. Appellant is the claimant, injured in a motor accident which occurred on 30/11/2001. While he was proceeding from Aluva to Munnar, riding his motor cycle, a jeep bearing Registration No.KL-4/9878 came and hit the motor cycle from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, he sustained injuries. The accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the jeep driver/first respondent. In support of his claim, petitioner gave evidence as PW1. Besides petitioner also produced Exts.A1 to A11 documents. No evidence was adduced on the side of the respondent. M.A.C.A. No.106 of 2008 2 2. The issue regarding negligence was found in petitioner's favour and it has become final. The medical board certified his disability at 15% as evidenced by Ext.A7, Certificate. The Tribunal, however, reduced the disability to 10%. According to the appellant, there was no justifiable reason to reduce the percentage of disability, especially when it was certified by the Medical Board. We find force in his contention. Normally when the disability is certified by a doctor and the veracity of the acceptance of the certificate is doubted, he will be re-examined by the Medical Board. But the Tribunal found that the percentage of disability assessed by the Medical Board will not be more acceptable. In this case, as against the expert evidence adduced as per Ext.A7 and PW1 himself have spoken about the injury, in the absence of any contra evidence, the percentage of the disability fixed by the Medical Board should have been accepted. 3. Further Ext.A6 Salary Certificate produced by the M.A.C.A. No.106 of 2008 3 appellant, showing his monthly income as Rs.8,000/- was not accepted since the same was not proved by the employer. However, the Tribunal fixed his salary as Rs.2,000/-, but while calculating the compensation, they took only Rs.1,333/- as his income. No reason as stated for reducing the multiplicant to Rs.1,333/- even after accepting the amount of Rs.2,000/- as salary. In the circumstance, we take Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income and taking 15% as his disability, and on reworking the compensation as above, the appellant will be entitled for an additional amount of Rs.54,000/-, in the place of Rs.23,994/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, he is entitled for a further amount of Rs.30,006/- which is rounded to Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded only 6% interest and we increase it to 7% per annum. 4. The compensation has been awarded on the other heads are adequate. In the circumstances, the entire compensation including the additional compensation will M.A.C.A. No.106 of 2008 4 carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The balance compensation less the amount already paid will be deposited, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The balance court fee, if any, shall be payable before withdrawing the amount. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE nl