IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.NO. 867 OF 2006() ------------------------------------ OPMV.837/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS ------------------------------------------ SURESH.M.P., S/O.KUNNUMPRATH BALAKRISHNAN, SURESH NIVAS, MELATHIYADAM, P.O.SREESTHA, PAZHAYANGADI, KANNOOR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. P.HAREESHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, NITHIN NIVAS, PALLIKULAM, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNOOR DISTRICT. 2. K.JAYAKRISHNAN, S/O.KANNAN, 54/99, SECTION OFFICER, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENCHIPALAM. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., FEROKE BRANCH OFFICER, POOTHERY, BUILDING, FEROKE-673 631. ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.867 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Thomas P. Joseph, J. It is claimed that appellant who is an Aircondition Mechanic was travelling in the Tempo Van involved in this case on 17.12.1999 in connection with his employment. The Van is stated to have hit a stationary bus causing grievous injuries to the appellant. He alleged that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the Tempo Van and claimed Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle but awarded only Rs.6,20,500/- According to the appellant, compensation awarded is low. Hence this appeal. 2. Heard counsel for appellant and contesting respondent. 3. Point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 4. Perused the relevant records. 5. Point: Exhibit A3 is the copy of wound certificate. Appellant sustained the following injuries: “Lacerated wound 4x3 cm left cheek, black eye - bylateral, M.A.C.A. No.867 of 2008 -: 2 :- Displaced fracture for both bones of right leg middle 1/3rd, Displaced fracture tibia left, Compound fracture, dislocation and ankle left with external wound 15x15 cm over the lateral aspect of both bones protruding out”. 6. Appellant underwent inpatient treatment at Heart Hospital, Thrissur for about 60 days as proved by Exhibits A4 and X3, from 18.12.1999 to 4.2.2000 and again from 22.2.2000 to 4.3.2000. Report on CT scan revealed that there was diffuse cerebral oedema with brain stem injury. He was subjected to operation on 19.12.1999. He was treated with closed tibial interlocking nail and distal interlocking screw. Again appellant underwent inpatient treatment from 4.4.2000 onwards. Compound fracture of left tibia and fibula was in a badly infected condition. While so left leg was amputated below knee on 6.4.2000. Exhibit X2 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board attached to the District Hospital at Kannur certifying 100% occupational disability. Tribunal did not accept the same but fixed the whole body disability of the appellant at 46%. Accordingly compensation was awarded taking Rs.2,000/- as the monthly income. According to the learned counsel for the appellant monthly income fixed is too low and compensation awarded on other counts are also M.A.C.A. No.867 of 2008 -: 3 :- low. 7. Appellant produced Exhibits A38 and A39 to prove his income. It is not very much in dispute that the appellant was an Aircondition Mechanic at the relevant time. Appellant was aged 23 years at the time of the accident. Considering his age and occupation, we are inclined to think that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. We therefore fix the monthly of the appellant at Rs.3,000/-. For loss of earnings Tribunal awarded Rs.8,000/- (at the rate of Rs.2,000/- for four months). Since we have re-fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- appellant is entitled to get compensation for loss of earning for four months at the rate of Rs.3,000/- which comes to Rs.12,000/- against a sum of Rs.8,000/-. Appellant will get a further sum of Rs.4,000/- on that count. 8. For disability and loss of earning power, Tribunal awarded Rs.1,87,680/- taking 46% as permanent disability, Rs.2,000/- as monthly income and 17 as the multiplier. We find no reason to interfere with the percentage of disability and the multiplier adopted. Thus the appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.2,81,520/- ([3000x12x17x46/100]) as against Rs.1,87,680/- awarded by the Tribunal. The additional compensation to which the appellant is entitled on that count is Rs.93,840/-. 9. Though it is contended by the counsel for appellant that M.A.C.A. No.867 of 2008 -: 4 :- compensation awarded on other counts are low, we find that the Tribunal has taken into account various aspects and the evidence adduced and awarded compensation on other counts which we find is just and fair and hence no interference is required. Appellant is entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.97,840/- which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Appeal is allowed in part. Appellant is allowed to realise additional compensation of Rs.97,840/- (Rupees Ninety seven thousand and eight hundred and forty only) with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application till realisation from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Third respondent being the insurer of the vehicle is directed to deposit the said amount. On such deposit the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv