IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 745 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.907/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- P.RAJEEVAN, S/O.V.V.GOVINDAN, PANAKKEEL HOUSE, MOTTAMMAL, P.O. ELAMBICHI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUNNY IPE, S/O.AVIR IPE, PLAMUDI, KOTTAPPADI VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.JAMES KOSHY.N., SC. KSRTC FOR R1 SRI.K. PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 745 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th 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 awarded a total compensation of Rs.91,000/- to the appellant. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short the K.S.R.T.C.) 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a qualified Mechanic. He has produced necessary certificate in this regard. He was working with the K.S.R.T.C. as a temporary employee. The accident took place on 21.2.1998. M.A.C.A.No. 745 of 2004 2 He was hospitalised from 21.2.1998 to 31.3.1998. He suffered injuries in the accident. In particular, it is emphasized that he lost the ability to use his right hand. 4. The Medical Board assessed his permanent disability at 48%. The Tribunal has taken the disability as 20%. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that being a Mechanic, without using his hand he will not be able to do any work and therefore the Tribunal erred in reducing the percentage of disability from 48% to 20%. He further points out that the income has been fixed at Rs.1,500/- There is evidence to show that he was earning Rs.2,400/- being a trained Mechanic. 5. The learned counsel pointed out that as regards the claim of Rs.8,000/- towards bystanders expenses, transportation etc. he has been awarded only a meager sum of Rs.3,000/- The learned counsel for the Corporation supports the award. 6. It cannot be disputed that the appellant was a trained Mechanic. He has produced certificate to indicate his qualifications. M.A.C.A.No. 745 of 2004 3 He has produced the discharge certificate issued from the Corporation. We cannot discount the possibility of the appellant being a trained Mechanic getting appropriate employment in future. But it is pointed out that his prospect has been impaired by the accident, in particular, the defect on his right hand. He is not in a position to carry out his daily needs without the help of others. 7. No doubt, the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that the assessment by the Board has not been made with reference to the whole body. But we cannot, at the same time, ignore the fact that when the disability is to that part of the body, without which a person is disabled from making his livelihood, it is not proper to consider whether the disability is to the whole body. If a Mechanic loses his hand, it does not require much imagination to hold that virtually he is without the equipment to carry out his occupation. We think that the income fixed at Rs.1,500/- is too meager. We also take note of the inadequacy of the amount towards transportation, extra nourishment, bystanders expenses etc. under one head, making a total amount of M.A.C.A.No. 745 of 2004 4 Rs.3,000/- Having regard to the totality of facts, we think that the interests of justice would be met if the appellant is awarded Rs.40,000/- as a lump sum, which will bear interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 8. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.40,000/- more with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the first respondent. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm