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 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 260 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.475/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- KUNJUMON.T.K., S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, THAITHARACKAL HOUSE, NJAYAPPILLY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.P.THOMAS, S/O.PAILY, KULAPPURAM HOUSE, KEERAMPARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. SIJI VARGHESE, NIRAVATH HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MEDICAL MISSION JUNCTION, KOLENCHERRY. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- MACA No. 260 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R.Raman, J The appellant is the injured. He was a loading and unloading worker. While loading timber into a lorry, the driver of the lorry moved the vehicle abruptly resulting in the accident. The appellant sustained grave injury. Both the driver and and owner of the lorry remained ex- parte. Further the charge against the driver for offence under Section 279 and 338 of IPC ended in conviction of the driver pleaded guilty. Further the Insurance Company also conceded the accident and negligence on the part of the respondent/driver and liable to be compensated. 2. The appellant/claimant claimed a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- by way of compensation under different heads. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence available on record, awarded a sum of Rs.2,64,200/- with interest at the rate of 9 ½ % per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. 3. Inter alia contending that the compensation awarded is in adequate and claiming more, this appeal has been preferred. 4. There is no doubt that the injuries sustained by the MACA No. 260 of 2008 2 appellant is so grave. But the Tribunal accepting the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board in spite of the fact that the Doctor examined to prove the certificate was only having 3 ½ years of experience. Still it preferred to accept the certificate and awarded a compensation for disability taking the percentage of disability certified in Ext.A13. A sum of Rs.93,600/- was thus awarded as compensation for loss of earning power and permanent disability. Though the appellant would contend that the income fixed at the rate Rs.3,500/- is on the lower side. Considering the fact that the appellant did not mount the box and further the certificate issued by the Union in which he is a member only show his income as Rs.250/- per day for a total 150 days in a Calendar year and on working out the average wages, his monthly salary was not more than Rs.2,500/- per month. Nobody is examined to prove the certificate. In the circumstances, a marginal reduction is made and the Tribunal fixed his income as Rs.2,500/-. The disability compensation worked out taking 13 as the multiplier inspite of the fact that the appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove his age. Thus it can be seen that the Tribunal was considerate in the matter of awarding just compensation under this head. We do not find any interference is called for. Towards the pain and suffering a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded. An amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the loss of amenities besides a further sum of Rs.15,000/- is also awarded towards disfiguration. Though it is contended that no compensation is awarded towards future medical treatment, the Tribunal has considered this aspect MACA No. 260 of 2008 3 and included this also while awarding compensation for disfiguration however we think the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant as evidenced by Ext.A15 shows that he required for the medical treatment. Thus deserves to be compensated. Accordingly an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded. All other amounts awarded under different heads are adequate and do not call for any interference. 5. We find that the Tribunal was awarded interest at the rate of 9½ % from the date of the Award is not correct or sustainable. Though the rate of interest at 9½ % which is on the higher side, the period for which interest is awarded is from the date of Award. Normally the compensation should carry interest from the date of petition till realisation and the normal rate of interest during this period is only 7%. Accordingly we direct that entire compensation as awarded by the Tribunal together with a sum of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by us by way of additional compensation will carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of petition till realisation. The amount as awarded above will be deposited before the Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by the Insurance Company. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dnc