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 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 259 of 2005(C) ---------------------- OPMV.2390/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.P.ELDHOSE,AGED 33 YEARS, SON OF PAULOSE,KARIKKUDY HOUSE,PILLAIKKAD, THURUTHY P.O.,VENGOOR (VIA),KURUPPAMPADY. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.NITHYA.K. SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. A.M.RAHIM,ANAKKATT HOUSE, AMBATTUKAVU,CHOORNIKKARA,VIA. ALWAYE. 2. M.N.MANOJ,S/O. NARAYANA KAMATH, NARAM KANNEZHATH HOUSE,WARD NO.24, CHERTHALA VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BANK JUNCTION,ALWAYE-1. 4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. NO: 259 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th Day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT K. M. Joseph J. The appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim of the appellant was for Rs.2,12,750/- The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.55,500/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, this appeal is filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared before us. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal should have awarded disability compensation applying the multiplier method. This is a case where the Medical Board has assessed the disability at 15%. Further, the contention is that the Tribunal ought to have been taken the income of the appellant at as claimed as Rs.2,000/- On this basis, more amount should have been M.A.C.A . NO: 259 OF 2006 :2: awarded towards loss of earning. Only Rs.3,000/- is awarded taking income of the appellant at Rs.1,500/- and treating the period of loss of earning, as only two months. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award. 5. This a case where the Medical Board certified the disability at 15%. In the Certificate it inter-alia stated that “Knee flexion is 900 Ankle plantar flexion is 200 Ankle dorsiflexion is 10 0” It is also stated that he had Type II fracture of both bones (R ) leg, fracture base of (L) 3rd meta carpal. Accordingly the disability is assessed as partial permanent orthopaedic disability at 15%. approved by Mecbrides scale. 6. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- without applying multiplier. We would think the appellant can be awarded a compensation under disability by applying the multiplier. The Tribunal has noted that the appellant was aged below 33 of age group of M.A.C.A . NO: 259 OF 2006 :3: evidence which would have been meant in the age of 26-30 at the time of the accident. This means that going by the judgment of Apex Court in Serala Verma & Others V. Delhi Transport Corpn. and anotehr (2009 ACJ 1298)'s case the multiplier appropriate is 17. 7. In the Certificate issued by Medical Board it is not stated that it is the whole body disability. The Tribunal also found that the appellant is running his own catering unit services. Therefore, the disability percentage can be fixed at 10%. On this basis, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,600/- more by taking the annual income as Rs.18,000/- fixing the percentage of disability at 10% and taking the multiplier as 17. 8. Learned counsel for the third repondent would submit, if the Court grants enhancement, the court may reserve the right to recover the same from respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal has found that it is entitled to recover the amount of compensation from respondents from 1 and 2. The third respondent will be at liberty to recover the amount from respondents 1 and 2. M.A.C.A . NO: 259 OF 2006 :4: 9. In such circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.15,600/- more from respondents 1,2 and 3 along with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The third respondent will be at liberty to recover the amount as permitted by the Tribunal. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/