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 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 322 of 2005(D) ----------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.408/1997 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY. .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- BHASKARAN VADI, S/O. NARAYANAN, DRIVER (TEMPO), RESIDING AT VADI HOUSE, P.O. CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.V.AMARESAN. RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT NO.3: ---------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, TRICHUR P.O. BY ADVS. MR .P.JAYASANKAR, SMT.SARAH SALVY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. NO: 322 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th Day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT K. M. Joseph J. The appellant is the claimant in a petition filed by the petitioner under the Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As against the original claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, and subsequently amended claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,65,150/-. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. M. V. Amaresan would submit that, the appellant, who was a driver suffered very serious injuries. He was out of work for a long period. But he has been given loss of earning only for one year. Secondly, he contends that the income was fixed at Rs.1,500/- per month. M.A.C.A . NO: 322 OF 2005 :2: This is too low, he contends. He submits that there is evidence in the form of Ext.A7 to show that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Thirdly, he would contend that though the certificate of disability shows that he had suffered disability at 30%, the Tribunal has taken disability only at 15%. He would further contend that the Tribunal has erred in not granting any compensation against the claim of Rs.9,000/- towards medical bills. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant, would point out that the appellant had to undergo surgeries and as a result of which, the appellant had developed osteomylitis, which condition prevented him from pursuing any vocation. The compensation awarded is very meager, it is contended. 5. The learned counsel for the Insurance company supported the award. He submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable. 6. The first question to be considered is to what is the M.A.C.A . NO: 322 OF 2005 :3: income of the appellant. The appellant was a driver by profession. The accident took place in year 1996 (11.8.1996). According to the appellant, his employer Dr. Girish was examined as PW2 to prove the receipt of the income. We feel that, we can safely fix the income of the appellant as Rs.1,800/- per month. 7. The next question to be considered is the percentage of disability. The doctor who issued the certificate was not examined to prove the disability certificate, as such. But having regard to the nature of injuries and after effects of the accident, we can safely fix the disability at 20% instead of 15%. 8. On this basis, applying the multiplier of 16, which we take for the reason, that we intend to award the appellant further compensation in the form of loss of earning, though the multiplier ought to have taken as 17 according to 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Verma and others), and not 18, which is taken by the Tribunal. The appellant would be entitled to disability M.A.C.A . NO: 322 OF 2005 :4: compensation of Rs.68,520/-, and after deducting Rs.48,000/- already awarded, the appellant is entitled to for an amount of Rs.20,520/- more. On the basis of the increased income we have taken, the appellant would be entitled for Rs.3,600/- for one year. 9. The next question is regarding the loss of earning. The appellant has referred to the medical bills to show the nature of injuries and the condition, which he sustained from the injuries. In the nature of injuries, it is quite clear that the appellant have suffered loss of earning for a period of more than one year. We are inclined to accept the said version. We awarded loss of earning for one more year. On this ground the appellant would be entitled for an amount of Rs.21,600/- (Rs.1,800 x 2 ). 10. The next question is regarding granting of Rs.9,000/- towards medical bills. The learned counsel for the respondent points out that reasons have been given by the Tribunal for not acting on the medical bills. They are as follows: M.A.C.A . NO: 322 OF 2005 :5: “There is another receipt for Rs.9,100/- issued by one Doctor. But the said receipt was not marked in evidence, and the Doctor was not examined to prove the receipt. Even otherwise the receipt is not acceptable or admissible in evidence because it is not a properly and legally stamped receipt.” We agree with the said reason and reject the contention. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is allowed to realise an amount of Rs.45,720/- more along with interest of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the respondents. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/