IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1141 of 2005 D -------------------------------------------- OPMV.2516/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S):PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- LINESH. M. SUKUMARAN @ KOCHUMON, S/O. SUKUMARAN, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, NATTASSERY KARA, S.H.M.P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. AJITH. S. NAIR, S/O. SASIDHARAN NAIR, CHENNATHARA HOUSE, S.H.M.P.O., KOTTAYAM-6. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM BRANCH. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 1141 OF 2005 D --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th July, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He stands awarded a total sum of Rs.1,04,900/=. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, Insurance Company. The Appeal is directed against the quantum. 3. Rs.32,400/= was granted towards permanent disability. This is on the following basis: Rs.1,500/= was taken as the monthly income and relying on Ext.A18, 12 per cent is taken as the disability and 15 is taken as the multiplier. On the basis of the income of Rs.1,500/=, Rs.10,000/=was allowed towards loss of amenities. Learned counsel for the appellant raised three MACA.NO.1141/2005 D 2 points. Firstly, he would contend that the income should have been taken at Rs.4,000/= which is certified as can be seen from Ext.A14 Employment Certificate. On that basis, he submits that the appellant is entitled to a higher compensation towards loss of earning. Thirdly, he points out that the rate of interest awarded is only 6 per cent. 4. Learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company would submit that actually disability is not proved as such and further that Ext.A14 was also not proved. The appellant was only 21 years of age at the time of accident and there is no evidence also about his qualification. 5. The year of accident is 1999. The appellant was 21 years of age. We are certainly not prepared to act on the basis of Ext.A14, certifying income of Rs.4,000/= per month. Neither has the appellant gone into the witness box, nor has he examined the person who issued Ext.A14. But, none the less, we feel that having regard to the year of the accident and the nature of the vocation, we can fix the income at Rs.1,800/= per month. On the said basis, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.6,480/= more towards disability. In the same way, on the basis of the MACA.NO.1141/2005 D 3 increase in income by Rs.300/= per month for six months, as found by the tribunal, the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,800/= more towards loss of earning. Thus, the appellant is entitled to Rs.7,280/= more. Further, we accept the contention of the appellant that the rate of interest should have been 7.5 per cent, and not 6 per cent. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is allowed to realise the amount already awarded with 7.5 per cent interest instead of 6 per cent and the appellant is also allowed to realise a further sum of Rs.8,280/= which is rounded off to Rs.8,300/= with interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the second respondent Insurance Company. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge