IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 MFA.No. 944 of 2002() --------------------- OPMV.1645/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN O.P.(M.V): ----------------------------------- SHIBU, S/O. VARGHESE, KANNAMBILLY HOUSE, MELOOR P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V): -------------------------------------- (*) 1. K.V. THOMAS, S/O. VARGHESE, KANNAMBILLY HOUSE, MELOOR P.O. (DELETED) 2. THOMAS, S/O. VARUTHUNNI, UPPUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARATHAMBILLY, KODAKARA. 3. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., III FLOOR, MAHESWARI BUILDING, THRISSUR. (*)FIRST RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY, AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 14.12.2007 ON IA NO.2934/2007. R3 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8/1/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.944 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.1645/1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda is the appellant. The appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 16.4.1994. He filed Original Petition claiming compensation impleading the owner, rider as well as the insurer. Respondents 1 and 2 disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner. It was contended that the rider of the vehicle was having a valid driving licence. Insurer also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed. It was contended that the petitioner sustained only minor injuries and he had not sustained any disability. Negligence alleged on the part of the second respondent rider was denied. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the rider. It also found that the insurer was liable to indemnify the insured. Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to get a compensation of Rs.17,000/- and directed the insurer to pay the compensation amount. Challenging inadequacy of compensation, this appeal is filed. 2. The only question arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to get any additional compensation. Appellant sustained collis fracture and other injuries. Though the appellant had produced a salary certificate to the effect that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.2,100/- Tribunal MFA No.944/2002 -: 2 :- took Rs.800/- as his salary per month. Tribunal found that the appellant had sustained a disability of 5%. I am of the view that at least for calculating the disability the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.1,250/- as his income. Tribunal awarded Rs.3,200/- towards loss of earning for four months. I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.1,800/- more on that count. Appellant is also entitled to get Rs.4,500/- as compensation on account of disability. Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.2,500/- more for pain and suffering. So the appellant is entitled to get Rs.8,800/- more as compensation which will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Appellant is allowed to realise Rs.8,800/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Third respondent insurer is directed to deposit that amount. On deposit the appellant can withdraw the entire amount. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks MFA No.944/2002 -: 3 :- K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. M.F.A.No.944 of 2002 JUDGMENT 8th January, 2008.