IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 98 of 2003(C) ---------------------- OPMV.731/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------- SANTHOSH CHIKKU, ANANDASADANOM, THORAPURAM, MANARKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIIKRISHNON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. M.MUTHU ALAGAN, 10 C.H.ROAD, MADRAS – 04. (DELETED) NAME OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 13.9.06 IN I.A.NO.1750/06. 2. A.N.VALLIMAYIL, SREE RAM AGENCIES, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., 59, RAJA STREET, GOBI CHETTIPALAYAM, TAMIL NADU - 633476. 4. N.K.FIROZ, VATTAMANNAPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD. 5. SIDDIQUE, 15/19, BISMILLA MANZIL, MURUKAVU, YAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., SHOBHA, T.S.M.COMPLEX, IST FLOOR, V.H.ROAD, PALAKKAD - 678001. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R3,6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO.98 OF 2003 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Appellant/Claimant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident. Tribunal found that both vehicles involved in the accident were equally responsible for the accident. Claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle driven by the 4th respondent and owned by the 5th respondent. It collided with the bus owned by the 2nd respondent and driven by the 1st respondent. Bus was insured by the 3rd respondent Insurance company. Ext.B1 is the insurance policy. The 6th respondent denied the issuance of policy to the Motor cycle involved in the accident. No evidence was adduced to prove that motor cycle was covered by the policy of insurance. Hence the 6th respondent was exonerated and liability was fixed on R1 to R5. The 3rd respondent Insurance company was ordered to deposit the amount and 50% of the amount M.A.C.A.NO.98/03 2 was ordered to be realised from respondents 4 and 5. No appeal was filed by R3, R4 and R5 against the above judgment and that judgment has become final. But against a claim of Rs.53,52,879/-, only Rs.5,84,400/- was awarded by the Tribunal with 9% interest per annum. Only dispute raised in this appeal is regarding the quantum of compensation. According to the appellant, he was employed in Akbar Travels as a Marketing Executive and he was getting Rs.4,500/- as the monthly income. Tribunal has taken Rs.4,000/- as the monthly income for calculating compensation. It is the contention of the appellant that after the accident he might have been promoted and his salary would have been increased and future prospects have to be considered but the fact is that he continued in the employment. Hence, we see no ground to enhance Rs.4,000/- fixed by the Tribunal as monthly income. Taking the age of the claimant (24), 17 was taken as the multiplier. It is contended that the Supreme Court has held that if the motor accident victim's age is between 20 and 25, a highest multiplier should be taken but taking guidelines from the 2nd schedule, we are not enhancing the multiplier. It is also contended that the appellant's right hand has become M.A.C.A.NO.98/03 3 completely useless and it has become functionless. Medical Board has certified 60% disability. But Tribunal has granted compensation only for 40% disability and loss of earning power. Since the appellant has continued in his employment, we are of the opinion that compensation can be granted only for 40% disability and loss of earning power. No enhancement is required as he has not lost his employment. However, it is contended that he has produced medical bills of Rs.5,33,000/-. But Tribunal has granted only Rs.2,16,000/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses. Tribunal did not consider each individual bill and no reasons are given regarding why all the bills are not considered. For transportation expenses, according to the appellant, he had to go to Coimbatore and Chennai and awarded only Rs.3,000/- towards transportation expenses despite production of bills amounting to Rs.45,135/-. It is also contended that for 101 days he was in the hospital. He was under treatment for a long period. No amount was awarded for actual loss of earning for the treatment period. Hence, we remand the matter to the Tribunal to consider the quantum of compensation granted for medical expenses, transportation M.A.C.A.NO.98/03 4 expenses and loss of actual earning. Bills produced also have to be verified. The matter regarding compensation payable for the above three heads should be reconsidered by the Tribunal and shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Parties may appear before the Tribunal on 17.12.2008. With the above observations this appeal is allowed by way of remand. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO.98 OF 2003 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 30rd October, 2008