IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 2016 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.79/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- INIT, S/O. AYYAPPAN, AGED 20 YEARS, NELLITHANATHU HOUSE, VAZHITHALA KARA, PURAPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT (DECLARED MAJOR AS PER ORDER DATED 14-9-2007 IN I.A.NO.1796/07 IN OP(MV)NO. 79/2004). BY ADV. SRI.C.M.TOMY SRI.MATHEW SKARIA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. ABDUL KARIM, S/O.KOCHUMUHAMMED, KADAPLACKAL HOUSE, KADUVAMUZHY BHAGAM, THALAPURAM KARA, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. P.P.BASHEER, PLAMOOTTIL HOUSE, KADUVAMUZHY, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PALA. ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF FOR R1 & 2 ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 2016 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has found that the appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,73,778/- The appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the, third respondent, Insurance Company. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that this is a case where there is composite negligence and the Tribunal ought not have deducted 20% of the amount. Still further he pointed out that in computing the disability the Tribunal has awarded Rs.57,000/-. According to him, there is M.A.C.A.No. 2016 of 2007 2 evidence for higher income and the amount of income taken, i.e. Rs.1,500/-, is low. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, no doubt, supported the award. He pointed out that there is no basis for taking Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income of the appellant. 5. This is a case where the appellant, along with another were pillion riders in a motor cycle when it had collided with another vehicle. The driver of the motor cycle had no licence. There were three riders in the motor cycle. But the Tribunal found that the driver of the motor cycle was not negligent. After finding that the driver of the motor cycle was not negligent, we are of the view, that the Tribunal had erred in deducting 20% from the total compensation. 6. As far as the disability income is concerned, if we take the income at Rs.1,250/-, to which the appellant is entitled to, and then applying the multiplier and percentage of disability as applied by the Tribunal, the amount of compensation would M.A.C.A.No. 2016 of 2007 3 come to Rs.57,000/- The Tribunal found that the appellant can be treated only as a student. If the income is taken as that of a student, then the income would be Rs.1,250/- If that be so, we feel that the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,77,000/- in the place of Rs.2,19,400/- 7. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant is entitled to realise a sum of Rs.2,77,000/- in the place of Rs.2,19,400/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the third respondent. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm