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 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1467 of 2005 ----------------------------------------- OPMV.74/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S):PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- SHAJI, S/O. THANKAPPANACHARY, ATTUMANGALATHU HOUSE, ODAMEDU KARA, KUMILY VILLAGE. (DIED) ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS: 2. REMANI, W/O. LATE SHAJI, ATTUMANGALATH HOUSE, VADAMEDU KARA, KUMILI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. SARANYA, D/O. SHAJI (MINOR). 4. VISHNU, S/O. DO. (MINOR) MINOR APPELLANTS2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.2. (ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LRS. OF THE DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 23.7.2008 IN I.A NO. 1797/2008). BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU. P.G., S/O. GOPALAN, CHERUTHOTTATHINADIYIL, ROSAUKANDOM, KUMALY VILLAGE, KUMILY P.O. 2. P.K. NAVAS, S/O. KASIN RAWTHER PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, VELADY VANDIPERIYAR P.O. M.A.C.A.NO.1467 OF 2005 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO. 1467 OF 2005 C --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th July, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Since insurance is admitted and counsel represents third respondent Insurance Company, we dispense with service of notice to the first respondent. Delay is condoned. 2. We take up the Appeal itself for hearing and dispense with service of notice on the first respondent in the Appeal. 3. The Appeal was filed originally by the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Pending the Appeal, he passed away and the additional appellants are his wife and two children. The Appeal relate to the quantum of compensation. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent Insurance Company. MACA.NO.1467/05 C 2 5. As against the claim for Rs.9 Lakhs, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,74,469/=. Learned counsel for the original claimant pointed out that the deceased was a carpenter, aged 38 years. He would contend that the tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.3,07,200/= towards permanent disability and loss of earning power. This is done by the tribunal by taking 16 as the multiplier and the income at Rs.2,000/= per month. The per centage of disability though certified under Ext.A14 Disability Certificate at 90 per cent, the tribunal has fixed disability at 80 per cent. He would further point out that the deceased was in hospital for 67 days and the tribunal has awarded only a consolidated sum of Rs.25,000/= towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities together. He lastly points out that the tribunal has erred in awarding only 6 per cent interest. 6. The first question to be considered is what is to be the income. The accident took place in the year 1999. No doubt, there is oral evidence of the original claimant and his vocation MACA.NO.1467/05 C 3 was carpenter. But, having regard to the year of the accident and the materials available on record, we are not inclined to disturb the finding regarding the income. But, we see merit in the contention of the appellants as regards the per centage of disability. Apparently, the claimant, as a result of the injuries became paraplegic. It is pointed out by the appellants that even for meeting the call of the nature, assistance was required. This means, having regard to the vocation and his age, it can be safely taken that he was not in a position to continue to earn any income. If that is so, we feel that the appellants are justified in demanding that the per centage of disability should be enhanced to 100 per cent. We do so. On this basic, the appellants would be entitled to a sum of Rs.76,800/= more. Likewise, we also feel that the appellants should be awarded, having regard to the period of hospitalisation and the condition obtaining due to the after-effects of the accident, a sum of Rs.15,000/= more under the joint heads “pain and suffering and loss of amenities”. Thus, the appellants are entitled to Rs.91,800/= which is rounded off MACA.NO.1467/05 C 4 to Rs.92,000/= more. We also award interest at 7.5 per cent on the amount already awarded and the amount which we award. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and the appellants are allowed to realise a sum of Rs.92,000/= more with 7.5 per cent interest from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the third respondent. We also award interest at 7.5 per cent instead of 6 per cent on the amount already awarded against the third respondent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge