IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 1211 of 2005 ----------------------- OPMV.2523/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT IN OP(MV).2523/96: ----------------------------------------------------------------- M.R. SAJEEV, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, PADAMUGAL P.O., KAKKANAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN OP(MV).2523/96: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.O. DAVIS, S/O. V.V. KOCHAPPU, VARAPUZHAKARAN HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., KALADY, PIN-683 584. 2. V.K. SHAJI, S/O.KOCHAPPU, VARAPUZHAKARAN HOUSE, NEELESWARAN P.O., KALADY, PIN-683 584. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, MTPC OFFICE, VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-16. 4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN-35. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R4 SMT.D.GEETHA FOR R3 SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 1211 OF 2005 B --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th June, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. Appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,75,000/=. The Appeal is filed complaining of inadequacy of the compensation. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions before us. In the first place, it is pointed out that the Certificate issued by the Medical Practitioner would show that the appellant has suffered permanent disability of 35 per cent and against the same, 25 per cent alone is taken. It is further contended that the multiplier is taken as 15, but actually, having regard to his age which was 23 years at the time of accident, the multiplier should have been 17. The third contention is that there is shortening of MACA.NO.1211/05 B 2 the right leg by two inches and that he suffered disfiguration and no amount was granted towards the same. Learned counsel for the third respondent supports the Award. 3. As far as the question of income is concerned, admittedly there is oral evidence of PW1. We note that the accident was in the year 1996. Appellant does not have a case that he was working on monthly salary under any particular employer. Therefore, we would not think that any further increase is warranted. 4. However, we feel that the appellant is entitled to higher compensation on two grounds which we consider together. Appellant has been granted a total sum of Rs.67,500/= towards loss of earning power. In arriving at the same, the tribunal has taken the multiplier of 15. Appellant has produced Ext.A10, which is an attested copy of the licence. From the same, it is discernible that the age of the appellant was 23 years. This means that the applicable multiplier should have been taken as 17. Further, we notice that there is some substance in the MACA.NO.1211/05 B 3 contention that the per centage of disability should not have been reduced from 35 to 25. But, we cannot also overlook the fact that the appellant has not examined the Medical Practitioner. We also cannot overlook the reasoning of the tribunal that there was no treatment after 2001, when the disability was assessed and there is some improvement in the condition of the right leg. But, at the same time, we also cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant was a driver. Having regard to the profession as a driver, the shortening of the right leg would assume greater significance. Having regard to the totality of the facts, we would think that the per centage of disability should be taken as 27 per cent instead of 25. On the basis of these changes in the factors, we arrive at a sum of Rs.82,620/=. When deducting the amount already granted, the appellant would be entitled to an enhancement of Rs.15,120/= towards loss of earning power which is rounded off to Rs.15,000/=. We further notice that the appellant who was 23 years of age at the time of accident did suffer disfiguration as a MACA.NO.1211/05 B 4 result of the shortening of the right leg by two inches and we feel that the appellant should be granted a sum of Rs.5,000/= more towards disfiguration. But, we notice that the tribunal has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/= towards disability. Having regard to the law laid down by this Court, a further sum may not be warranted. The upshot of this discussion is that we find that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/= more with 7.5 per cent interest from the date of the petition till the date of realisation as against the third respondent. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.15,000/= with 7.5 per cent interest more from the third respondent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge