IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 515 of 2003 ------------------------------------ OP.1021/1994 of M.A.C.T., PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: RAJESH K.J., S/O. JOSE, AGED 31, 21/135, KOONAMPLAKAL HOUSE, OPP.RAPHEL FURNITURE WORKS, VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD 678 004. (DIED). ADDL. APPELLANTS IMPLEADED 1. K.J.JOSE, S/O JOSEPH, 22/398, KUNNAMPLACKAL HOUSE, VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD. 2. BABY JOSE, W/O K.J.JOSE, DO. DO. Impleaded as per order dt. 22.10.08 on IA 2847/08 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RAGHUNATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. M.V.KRISHNAKUMAR S/O. VELAYUDHAN, MANDOMANA HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR -2. 2. P.S.SUKUMARAN, S/O. LATE SANKUNNY NAIR, PROPRIETOR, M/S. ENSIGN TAXIS, JOSE JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., JOSE JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. 4. SHEIK MUJEEB, AGED 26 YEARS, 21/124 THUMBI PARAMBIL, VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD. 5. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PALAKKAD. R1 deleted from party array at the risk of the appellant as per order dt. 29.6.04 on IA 1922/04 ADV. SRI.V.K.BALACHANDRAN FOR R2 SRI.S.SHYAM FOR R2 SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.515 of 2003 --------------------------------- JUDGMENT Koshy, J. The original appellant in this case sustained serious injuries in a motor accident. He was a pillion rider in a motor cycle. The above motor cycle hit on a car. The car was insured by the third respondent Insurance Company and the motor cycle was insured by the fifth respondent Insurance Company. The motor cycle was driven by the fourth respondent. The car was driven by the first respondent and owner of the car was the second respondent. He claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The total compensation awarded is Rs.61,250/-. The only dispute in this appeal is regarding the quantum of compensation. 2. The Tribunal found contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles and fixed 40% negligence on the part of the car MACA 515/03 2 driver and 60% negligence on the part of the motor cycle rider. Accordingly apportioned the liability to pay compensation between the two Insurance Companies respectively. No appeals are filed by the Insurance Companies and it has become final. So we are considering only the question regarding quantum of compensation. 3. Appellant was aged 22 at the time of the accident and according to him, he was a sales man getting Rs.25,000/- per year. While he was examined, he deposed that his monthly income was Rs.2,200/-. In the absence of any positive evidence, the Tribunal fixed only a notional income of Rs.1,250/- per month. Since the appellant was a 22 year old youngster and an earning member at the time of the accident, we are of the opinion that at least Rs.1,500/- ought to have been fixed as the monthly income. With regard to the injuries, Exhibit A17 is the disability certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Palakkad. MACA 515/03 3 According to him, 17.5 is the percentage of disability. Appellant sustained fracture of right forearm, fracture on the right tibia, multiple abrasions on the right forearm, right knee cerebral concussion and injury on the right arm and right knee. Exhibit A12 is the copy of the wound certificate. Exhibit A13 is the discharge certificate issued from the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. It reveals that the appellant had fracture of both bones of right forearm and fracture of right lateral tibial condyle. He was treated as an inpatient for 19 days in the hospital. Open reduction and internal fixation of forearm bones was also done. Therefore, 17.5% permanent disability was fixed by the doctor. The doctor was examined as PW3 and proved the certificate. The Tribunal has taken only 8% as the permanent disability. 4. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that due to the accident, appellant had MACA 515/03 4 mental trauma. He did not marry and he died at the young age of 36 in 2007 within fourteen years of the accident. After his death, his parents were impleaded. Therefore, the main contention of the counsel for the claimants is that compensation ought to have been granted for the death. But there was no evidence to show that death has got direct relation to the accident. We are considering whether the award passed by the Tribunal is correct or not. It is contended that the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the maximum multiplier 18 should be taken in the case of motor accident victims between the age group of 22-25. But, taking guidelines from the second schedule, we are not enhancing the 17 multiplier fixed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the compensation payable for permanent disability will be Rs.53,550/- (1500 x 12 x 17.5/100 x 17). Rs.20,500/- was granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the additional amount payable will be Rs.33,050/- for permanent disability. It MACA 515/03 5 is also contended that compensation granted under other heads are very low, we are of the opinion that no interference is required and just and reasonable compensation was awarded by the Tribunal under other heads. The above amount of Rs.33,050/- should be deposited by the Insurance Companies (Respondents 3 and 5) over and above the decreed amount in the ratio 40:60 as fixed by the Tribunal with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the amount, the additional appellants are allowed to withdraw the same in equal proportion. The appeal is allowed in part. (J.B.Koshy, Judge) 22nd October, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv