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 TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 1266 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1401/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- MANOJ, S/O. MOHANAN, KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, P.O. CHITTILAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.P. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, MELEVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O. IRUNILAMCODE, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1266 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. The appellant sustained injuries when an autorickshaw in which he was traveling had capsized. The appellant was aged 27 years at the time of accident. He was a toddy tapper by profession. Appellant sustained fracture of both bones on the right forearm. Initially he was treated with closed reduction and manipulations with POP cast application. But there was malunion of the fracture and the appellant developed multiple hypertrophic scars for which he had to undergo further prolonged treatment. The injuries sustained had resulted in persistent disability. Ext.A8 is the disability certificate issued by the Assistant Professor and Orthopaedic Surgeon, Medical College Hospital, Trichur. From the evidence adduced the Tribunal found that the appellant was working as a toddy tapper. As per the disability certificate, the extent of disability was assessed as 2 15%. But the Tribunal adopted only 10% disability, and monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2,500/-. An amount of Rs.51,000/- was awarded under the head of compensation for permanent disability. Total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.1,46,300/-. 2. Heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company. The appellant contended that as per Ext.A9 certificate produced in proof of occupation of the appellant, his monthly income was certified to be more than Rs.3,500/-, and therefore the amount of Rs.2,500/- adopted by the Tribunal is highly unrealistic and inadequate. It is further contended that inspite of clear evidence regarding extent of disability, the Tribunal had reduced the same to 10% without any basis and without any proper reasoning. Therefore, it is contended that the amount awarded under the head of compensation for permanent disability is highly on the lower side. It is also contended that the Tribunal had failed to grant any amount towards expenses for future treatment. 3. While considering the evidence on record it is revealed from Ext.A8 certificate that the appellant had permanent partial disability. 3 All the incapacities, difficulties and discomforts experienced by the appellant are well noted in Ext.A8 certificate. We do not find any proper reasoning for reducing the extent of disability to 10%. Eventhough counsel vehemently contended that the income adopted is too low, considering the amount certified in Ext.A9 we are not persuaded to accept the same. Ext.A9 certificate was not properly proved. Further, the income of the appellant as a toddy tapper is dependent on the measurement of toddy, which may vary from time to time. Considering the imponderables we are of the opinion that the income adopted by the Tribunal is reasonable. When calculated on the basis of 15% disability the amount of compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earning power need be reworked to Rs. 76,500/- (15% of 30,000 x 17). We are also inclined to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses for future treatment. Thus appellant is entitled for a total enhancement of Rs.35,500/- (76500 - 51000 = 25500 + 10000). 4. Counsel for the appellant contended that the rate of interest at 6% p.a. granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. We are inclined 4 to increase the rate of interest to 7.5% p.a. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the total compensation of Rs.1,46,300/- awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs.35,500/-. The original compensation as well as the enhancement granted in this appeal will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till payment. The second respondent- Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms