IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 1459 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.3458/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- MANIKANDAN, S/O.MANI, THEKKUMANNU HOUSE, THONIKKADAVU, P.O.PADOOR, KAVASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. K.G.BHASKARAN, S/O.GOPALAN, ELLIKKAL HOUSE, KALLEPPADAM,PAZHAYANNUR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. BASHEER, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, RAZACK MANZIL, VEMBALLOOR P.O. KODUVAYUR. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., SRIVALLI BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, CHITTOOR. (RESPONDENT NO.4 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT MADE A PARTY HEREIN, SINCE NO RELIEF IS CLAIMED AGAINST HIM). THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1459 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant in a road accident. Appellant was owner cum driver of an autorickshaw which while being driven by the appellant was hit by a bus causing injury to the appellant and damage to the vehicle. Compensation claims were put up against insurance company and the offending vehicle for personal injury as well as for damage to property. Even though MACT granted compensation under various heads, appellant is aggrieved against the amount of compensation awarded and hence this appeal for enhancement. Even though notice was served, there is no appearance for the insurance company. Therefore we are disposing of the appeal after hearing counsel for the appellant and after going through the award. 2. The grounds raised by the appellant are against the rejection in 2 the percentage of disability and against the fixation of income for awarding compensation. Even though appellant produced medical certificate showing disability at 20% MACT refixed it at 10%. Going by the nature of injuries and the age of the appellant and the profession in which he is engaged, we do not find any ground to interfere with the rejection in the percentage of disability. However, we feel since the appellant is a self employed person driving his own autorickshaw, income fixed at Rs. 2500/- in 1999 is quite low. We enhance the monthly income of appellant to Rs. 3000/- which will entitle the appellant for additional compensation for disability of Rs. 10200/- . Besides this considering the nature of injuries appellant would have lost his employment at least for three months and the grant of compensation for loss of earning for two months requires modification. This will entitle the appellant for further sum of Rs. 4000/-. Counsel for the appellant has referred to the survey report on the damage to the autorickshaw and according to him the amount of compensation granted is low. Considering this claim, we enhance the compensation by a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- . The additional compensation granted 3 by us will carry interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of payment. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C.K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk 4