IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 908 of 2002(E) --------------------------------- OPMV.1099/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT ------------------- SURESH KUMAR.S., S/O.V.N.SATHYAN, AGED 30 YEARS, BUNGLOW PARAMBIL HOUSE, PATTERIPURAM, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JAGAN GEORGE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. P.IBRAHIM, ULLAPPILLYPUTHENPURA HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., MOOVATTUPUZHA. 2. BASHEER, S/O.MAKKAR, ULLATTUKUDI HOUSE, PERUMATTAM KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MADAPPARAMBIL CHAMBERS, M.C.ROAD, MOOVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.908 OF 2002-D ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J: The appellant/claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident on 30.6.1996. Against a claim of Rs.Four lakhs, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,35,304/= with interest. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the 3rd respondent insurance company and 3rd respondent was directed to deposit the amount. The appellant was aged 25 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal fixed 18 as the highest multiplier for calculating compensation. We see no ground to enhance the multiplier fixed by the Tribunal even though it was contented that considering increase in the expectancy of age, highest multiplier should be taken into account. Ext.A7 shows that the appellant was a qualified electrician. Ext.A8 employment certificate issued from Social Welfare Technical School Association, Alwaye shows that he was getting Rs.3,000/= per month. The Tribunal has fixed only MFA.NO.908/2002 . 2 Rs.1,800/= on the ground that Ext.A8 was not properly proved. We are of the opinion that he was a qualified electrician. Even if Ext.A8 is discarded, considering his qualification, Rs.100/= per day ought to have been fixed and for 25 days work, he will get Rs.2,500/=. Therefore, we fix Rs.2,500/= as his monthly income. With regard to injuries, Ext.X1 (b) is a photocopy of the wound certificate issued in respect of the claimant. It shows that the appellant sustained lacerated wound over chin and lacerated multiple wound with deformity on the right leg middle which caused bleeding and thereby caused damage to the clothings. It also shows that commuted fracture tibia right, commuted fracture middle 3rd right leg, commuted fracture lower 3rd right leg, commuted fracture with compound fracture right leg femur and deformity with multiple lacerated wound and lacerated wound over chin and he was subjected to treatment for a long period and has spent some amount for extra nourishment. According to the appellant, he cannot walk properly. He cannot do any repairing works in the underneath of automobiles. Ext.A5 is the medical certificate issued by the doctor, who was examined as PW3. According to PW3, the injury caused difficulty of limitation of flexion by 450 deformity and scar on right leg. Scar on right femur with stiffness of ankle and hip and MFA.NO.908/2002 . 3 thereby sustained 30% of disability which amount to 10.050 % of whole body permanent partial disability. The Tribunal fixed only 8% disability without valid reason. According to the claimant, he should have been awarded compensation for at least 30% disability. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have fix 10.05 % disability for the purpose of calculation of compensation as certified by the doctor. If that be so, the compensation for disability will be 56,700/=(2500x12x10.5/100x18). The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.34,104/=. So, the additional compensation payable under this head is Rs.22,596/=. It is contended that considering the injuries and long period of treatment, he was unable to move for six months. Tribunal has granted only three months actual loss of earnings taking Rs.1,500/= as his monthly income. Since we have increased monthly income to Rs.2,500/=, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to claim Rs.3,000/= more. It is contended that he produced medical bills for Rs.65,278/=. There are many expenses not covered by the bills especially during a long period of in patient treatment. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.65,500/= for the long period of in patient treatment considering the bills produced. We are of the opinion that Rs.400/= should be awarded for that count. Thus additional amount payable will be MFA.NO.908/2002 . 4 Rs.25,996/= rounded to Rs.26,000/=. It is submitted that compensation granted for pain and suffering and all other heads are very low. But considering the total amount granted, we are not enhancing the compensation. The additional amount of Rs.26,000/= should be deposited by the 3rd respondent insurance company with 7.5% interest from the date of application till the date of deposit over and above the decreed amount by the Tribunal. On deposit of the amount, the appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl MFA.NO.908/2002 . 5 J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. M.F.A.NO.908 OF 2002-D JUDGMENT 27th day of June, 2008.