IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1444 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.1375/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV). --------------------------------------------- JOFFY ANTONY, S/O. ANTONY, NALPADAN, KORATTY P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN OP(MV). ------------------------------------ 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. HAREESH, S/O. KUMARAN, KADAVATHUVEETTIL HOUSE, KANJIRAKKADUKARA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R2 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD FOR R2 SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, ALONG WITH MACA NO.1241 OF 2005 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. Nos.1444, 1241, 1336, 1436 and 1438 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the injury sustained by the appellants. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellants and Standing Counsel appearing for the KSRTC and have perused the common award passed disposing of all claim petitions. 2. Accident is a collision between a car in which the claimants were traveling and a KSRTC bus. The claim of the appellants is that while one of them who was injured in some incident was taken to the hospital in a car, the bus collided against their car. We find lot of mistakes in the award with regard to width of the road, place of accident etc. On the whole the finding that the KSRTC driver was solely negligent probably cannot be sustained. However, in the absence of any appeal by the KSRTC, we do not propose to consider this question. 3. So far as the claim for enhancement of compensation is concerned, we find that MACT has considered in detail the claims and 2 granted reasonable compensation to all the claimants under various heads. The main ground raised is against fixation of notional monthly income at Rs.1,500/- for the purpose of granting compensation. None of the claimants were on regular employment and they have not produced any tenable evidence to prove their income. In fact no evidence is given about educational qualification or experience of any person in the profession in which they are said to be engaged. Another ground raised is against reduction of percentage of disability certified in the case of four claimants. We notice that the reduction made is only minor and there is no scope for interference in the reduction and refixation of percentage of disability by MACT because invariably Doctors certify higher percentage of disability. In this case on going through the nature of injuries sustained by the appellants, we feel reduction in disability made by the MACT is justified. Consequently we dismiss all the appeals. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms