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 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 884 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.1835/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- P.C.ABBAS, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.BEEYAKKUTTY, CHERUPUZHAKKAL HOUSE, VAVOOR, CHEKODE.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KUZHIKKATTU RASHEED, S/O.ABDULLA HAJI, MUTHUVALLUUR.P.O, KONDOTTY VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. K.MOIDEEN, S/O.MOHAMMED, KOLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THAVANUR, KUZHIMANNA.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MANJERI. ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJESH FOR R2 ADV.SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 884 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant is the petitioner in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior counsel for the third respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the third respondent from the liability. The appellant would further contend that no amount has been awarded towards loss of earnings and only Rs.1,250/- was taken as the income. 4. The learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, submits that it is true that the vehicle was covered by valid M.A.C.A.No. 884 of 2006 2 policy of insurance on the date of the accident. He would support the award as far as compensation is concerned. 5. The first question to be considered is what is the income of the appellant. He has given evidence. According to him, an amount of Rs.3,000/- would have been fixed as the income. The accident took place in the year 1996. We feel that we can fix the income as Rs.1,600/- On this basis, the appellant will be entitled to Rs.92,000/- towards disability. After deducting the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is entitled to realise a sum of Rs.20,000/- more under the said head. 6. We feel that the appellant can be awarded loss of earnings for two months. The appellant suffered penetrating injury to the left eye. He was assessed with 30% disability, which has been adopted by the Tribunal also. In such circumstances Rs.3,200/- more can be awarded towards loss of earning. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to realise a sum of Rs,23,200/- more with M.A.C.A.No. 884 of 2006 3 interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the third respondent. We modify the award and order that the appellant is entitled to realise the amount from the third respondent. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm