IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 730 of 2003(P) ---------------------------------- OPMV.2096/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ M.R.RAJENDRAN, PARVATHI BHAVAN, THRIKODITHANAM P.O., THANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SMT.BETTY K.ALUKKA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. DAYA KURUVILLA, VAVATHARA POOZHIKUNNEL SAJIVOTHAMAPURAM P.O., KURICHY. 2. RAJU FRANCIS, KADAVANMANAKUNNEL, PARAYANKUNNU BHAGOM, KOTHALA. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM. R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.730 OF 2003 ............................................. Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)No.2096/1995. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.14,160/=. The claimant and another person were travelling in a motor bike and the said bike dashed against a bus resulting in injuries to them. The Tribunal attributed 60% negligence on the motor cyclist and 40% on the bus driver and awarded the compensation accordingly. It is against that decision and the award, the appeal is preferred. 2. Heard. So far as the negligence is concerned, the motor cycle was proceeding from west to east and the bus was proceeding from east to west. The correct side of the bus was the southern side and that of the motor cycle was northern side. At the place of accident, the road has a width of 6.40 meters. The accident had taken place 2.62 meters north of the southern tar end. The scene mahazer : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.730 OF 2003 produced by the claimant himself would show that the accident had taken place absolutely on the wrong side of the motor cycle. It is further seen from the award that both the claimants who were travelling in the motor bike had the smell of alcohol at the time of the accident. They also did not adduce any further evidence to prove that the negligence was more on the bus driver. Therefore apportioning of the negligence by the Tribunal at 60% on the motor cyclist and 40% on the bus driver does not call for any interference. 3. The next point to be considered is the quantum. The accident had taken place in the year 1995 and the claimant was a Carpenter by profession. Considering his profession as a Carpenter, I am inclined to fix his income at Rs.1,750/= in stead of Rs.1,500/= fixed by the Tribunal. When three months loss of earning is granted, the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.750/=. When percentage of disability is fixed at 7% and the monthly income is at Rs.1,750/= and an appropriate multiplier 15 is used, the disability compensation would : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.730 OF 2003 come to Rs.22,050/= out of which Rs.18,900/= had been granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the additional compensation would be Rs.3,150/=. The Tribunal has not given any compensation for loss of aminites and enjoyment, which I fix at Rs.3,000/=. Therefore, the additional compensation would come to Rs.6,900/= and 40% of the same would come to Rs.2,760/=. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.2,760/= with 7.5% interest on the said sum from the date of the petition till realisation and the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said sum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.730 OF 2003