IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 2216 of 2010() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1754/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- ABDUL RASHEED, 40 YEARS, S/O.KUNHALAN HAJI, KOORIMANNIL HOUSE, WEST KODUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT/3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. CALICUT ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 2216 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1754 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated April 30, 2005 awarding a compensation of Rs.82,878/- for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. 2. The claimant sustained the following injuries in the accident :- “1) Fracture to neck of humerous. 2) Fracture to vertibra neck. 3) Loss of teeth. 4) Injury to head. 5) Injuries all over the body.” He developed weakness of both upper limbs. X-ray showed C3-4 dislocation with facet locking. MRI scan showed a gross discprolapse at C3-4 with dislocation and angulation MACA 2216/2010 2 of the cord at that level. 3. The accident happened on November 22, 1994 at about 8.45 a.m while the petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KRZ 2879 from Vengra to Thayyala. When he reached at Nelliparamba he was knocked down by a jeep bearing registration No.KL-10/B 1224, driven by the 1st respondent. Alleging negligence against the 1st respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. 4. The 1st respondent, driver of the offending jeep, filed a written statement admitting the accident but denied the liability. The 2nd respondent, owner of the offending jeep, remained absent before the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the offending jeep, filed a written statement admitting the policy of the vehicle. 5. Exts.A1 to A15 and Ext.X1 were marked on the side of the claimant. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the MACA 2216/2010 3 Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligence of the 1st respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.82,878/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. The claimant has come up in appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 7. The accident is not disputed. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent is not seriously challenged in this appeal. Therefore, the only question, which arises for consideration, is whether the claimant is entitled to any enhanced compensation. 8. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.82,878/-. Break up of the compensation awarded is as under:- Transport to hospital : Rs. 5,050/- Extra nourishment and : Rs. 2,600/- MACA 2216/2010 4 bystander's expenses. Medical expenses : Rs.31,895/- Pain and suffering : Rs.10,000/- Disability : Rs.33,333/- ------------------ Total : Rs.82,878/- ======= 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant sought enhancement of compensation for the disability caused and on other heads. 10. The Tribunal took the annual income of the claimant as Rs.25,000/-, took the percentage of disability as 25%, as certified by the Medical Board, adopted a multiplier of 16 and awarded a compensation of Rs.33,333/- towards disability caused. The claimant was aged 40 at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as a Contractor, according to him. He produced Exts.A14 contractor licence and Ext.A11 income-tax clearance certificate. Taking into consideration the above aspect, we feel that monthly income of the claimant can reasonably be fixed at Rs.2,500/-, which comes to Rs.30,000/- per annum. He has now mild weakness of the right hand. His movement MACA 2216/2010 5 of cervical spine is restricted. He has partial contusion of right shoulder. Therefore, the the percentage of disability assessed by the Tribunal as 25% appears to be reasonable. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal as 16 is not seriously disputed. Thus calculated for the disability caused, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 16 x 25/100). Therefore, the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.86,667/- on this count. As regards the compensation awarded under other heads, we find the same to be reasonable and therefore, we are not disturbing the same. 11. There is another aspect in this case. The appeal has been filed with a representation delay of 1915 days. The appellant is not entitled to any interest during that period. 12. In the result, the claimant is found entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.86,667/-. The Tribunal awarded interest only @ 6% per annum, which appears to be very low. He is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization for the MACA 2216/2010 6 compensation already awarded by the Tribunal and also for the enhanced compensation. The 3rd respondent shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the claimant. The award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn