IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 2070 of 2007() ----------------------- OP(MV).652/1998 of II ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV) ----------------- ABOOBACKER, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 36 YEARS, PALLIPURATH VEEDU, P.O.KAIPPURAM, VIA NADUVATTAM, PATTAMBI, PALGHAT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) ------------------------------------ 1. S.P.SUBRAMANIAN, M/S.ARUL MURUGAN TRADERS, OOR GOUNDER THOTTAM, GOBI, VARADAMPALAYAM, TAMILNADU (OWNER TN-36/A-2781 LORRY). 2. C.REGHU, S/O.CHINNAKALI NAIKAR, 88 MARNNUR, SEMBAKAPUTHUR P.O. SATHYAMANGALAM TALUK, ERODE DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, DL.NO.1839/92 BADGE NO.32927/95 VALID UP TO 24-9-98 (DRIVER TN 36/A-2781 LORRY). 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 3 MAIN ROAD, GOBI - 638452. POLICY NO.170602/31/021/11/00076/1997, VALID UP TO 9.10.98 (INSURER TN36 A/2781 LORRY). 4. MANAGING PARTNER, KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY, YMCA ROAD, CALICUT (OWNER KL-11/C/3315 BUS). 5. PANKAJAKSHAN M., S/O.KUMARAN, PALAKANDY VEEDU, VALAYANADU AMSOM DESOM, KACHERIKUNNU, CALICUT DL.NO.2216/76 BADGE NO.910/76 VALID UP TO 20.3.1999 (DRIVER KL 11/C-3315 BUS). 6. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, TRIPURI BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU CALICUT POLICY.NO.760603/31/97/83988 VALID UP TO 21-8-98. (INSURER KL-11/C-3315 BUS). BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2070 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The appellant was the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.652 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. On 27.2.1997, the appellant who was a passenger in the bus, bearing Registration No. KL-11/C-3315, which was proceeding from Velanchery to Kozhikode, and when the bus reached at Feroke Puthiyapalam, a lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-36/A-2781, came from the opposite direction, hit against the bus, and as a result of which, the appellant sustained injuries. He was taken to the Medical College Hospital and underwent treatment for more than 25 days. Alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry who is the second respondent, and fixing the vicarious liability on the owner of the lorry, the first respondent, the claim was preferred. MACA.No.2070 of 2007 2 2. The third respondent, Insurer of the lorry, was found liable to indemnify the first respondent, the owner of the lorry. Respondents 4 to 6 are the owner, driver and insurer of the bus. Though compensation of an amount of Rupees One Lakh was claimed, subsequently, it was amended to Rs.3 lakhs. The owner and driver of both the vehicles remained ex parte. The third respondent admitted coverage in respect of the lorry, but contended that the accident happened due to the contributory negligence of respondents 2 to 5. The 6th respondent, the Insurer of the Bus, also admitted the coverage in respect of the Bus and denied the allegation that the accident occurred on the part of the 5th respondent, but happened only due to the negligence on the part of the second respondent. 3. Exts.A1 to A5 as also Ext.X1 were produced before the Tribunal. There was no oral evidence adduced in the case. Based on the available evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of both the drivers of the vehicles, and directed apportionment of the liability in the ratio of 50:50. Though the appellant contended that he was a Madrassa Teacher earning an MACA.No.2070 of 2007 3 amount of Rs.2500/- per month, no appreciable evidence was adduced in this regard. Hence, the Tribunal fixed the notional income as Rs.1500/- and adopting a multiplier of '18', an amount of Rs.84,600/= was awarded by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, to be satisfied by the two Insurance Companies in equal proportion. 4. The appellant contends that the income as fixed by the Tribunal is too low and the income should have fixed as Rs.2500/- as claimed. But, in the absence of any evidence regarding the monthly salary, if any, paid to the appellant, the fixation of the notional income as Rs.1500/- cannot be said to be perverse. Hence, this contention is rejected. 5. It was then contended that the rate of interest granted is only at 6% per annum, and at least 7% interest should have been granted. We find that there is force in the said contention. We also find that even though 15% is taken as the disability, no compensation under the head 'loss of amenities' was separately given. In the circumstances, we direct that an amount of Rs.10,000/- be paid by way of compensation towards MACA.No.2070 of 2007 4 'loss of amenities in life'. We also modify the rate of interest to 7% instead of 6% awarded by the Tribunal. 6. In the result, a further amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded by way of additional compensation. However, the entire amount of compensation including the additional amount will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The balance compensation payable shall be apportioned between the respondents 3 and 6, the Insurer of both the vehicles, in equal proportion, and shall deposit the amount, as aforesaid, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No other points were urged. The appeal is thus allowed in part. No costs. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.