IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 308 of 2006(A) ------------------------------------ OPMV.130/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.SIVARAMAN, KILLIKULANGARA HOUSE, PANTHALLUR DESOM, NELLAYI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. N.R.RAVI, S/O.RAJENDRAN, 12/32 WEST STREET, NUNJUNDAPURAM, KALAPPANAIKAMPETTI, NAMAKKAL. 2. P.MEIVEL, S/O.PERUMAL, MANGALHAT, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ATHURAIYUR ROAD, NAMAKKAL, ANDHRA PRADESH. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.308 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Koshy, J. Appellant-petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident on 25.4.1998. While he was riding a motor cycle a lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-13/T-7272 came from the opposite direction and hit the same as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. He claimed Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation. Tribunal awarded only Rs.55,738/-. Finding that appellant also contributed equally to the accident, 50% of the amount awarded alone was allowed to be realised from the third respondent, which insured the lorry driven by the first respondent and owned by the second respondent. Quantum of compensation as well as the finding of contributory negligence are challenged in this appeal. 2. Despite opportunity given, no effective steps were taken to send notice to the second respondent. On 22.10.2008 two weeks' time was granted to the appellant to serve notice to the second respondent through Advocate Shri P.M.A. Jaleel, who was appearing for the second respondent before the Tribunal. But no steps were taken. Even otherwise M.A.C.A. No.308 of 2006 -: 2 :- we find as per the scene mahazar that the accident occurred on the wrong side of the appellant himself and there is no reason to interfere with the finding regarding contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. 3. Next question is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded. Coverage of insurance of the vehicle owned by the first respondent is admitted. Appellant was 25 years of age at the the time of the accident. Tribunal has taken 17 as the multiplier taking guidelines from the Second Schedule. We see no ground to interfere. According to the appellant he, at the time of the accident, was working as a Supervisor getting Rs.3,750/- as monthly income. But no salary certificate or evidence to that effect was produced. Therefore, Tribunal took Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income. Accident occurred in the year 1998 and appellant was a 25 year old employed man. We are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.2,500/- as the monthly income. Therefore, we fix Rs.2,500/- as the monthly income of the appellant. 4. So far as the injuries are concerned, Exhibit A5 is the accident-cum-wound certificate. It shows that the appellant sustained scalp injuries, lacerated wounds on the forehead, eyebrow, right upper M.A.C.A. No.308 of 2006 -: 3 :- arm and skin abrasion medial aspect of left knee, abrasion over left ankle and head injury. For about 30 days he was hospitalised, of which for 13 days he was in the ICU. Exhibit A7 is a medical certificate issued by the doctor, who was examined as P.W.2. 5. The appellant was hospitalised for 30 days of which for 13 days he was in the ICU and in any event there was a head injury and he was undergoing treatment for long period. The doctor who issued the medical certificate has stated that the appellant has difficulty to hold and carry heavy objects and also has difficulty to raise heavy objects above head with right upper limb. Therefore the Doctor certified 8% permanent disability. Even though disability certificate was produced, the Tribunal fixed the disability only as 4%. Considering the nature of the injuries, medical certificate and the evidence of P.W.2, Doctor, we find that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the disability at 8% as certified by the Doctor. If that be so, the compensation payable towards disability would be Rs.40,800/- [(2500x8x12x17/100)]. Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,240/- under that count. So the additional compensation payable on this count will be Rs.28,560/-. Tribunal found that the appellant was not able to do any work for three months. Since we have re-fixed the monthly income of M.A.C.A. No.308 of 2006 -: 4 :- the appellant at Rs.2,500/-, he is entitled to Rs.3,000/- more under that count. It is contended that the appellant was an inpatient for 30 days of which for 13 days he was in the ICU. Only Rs.5,000/- was awarded as compensation for pain and suffering. We are of the opinion that Rs.10,000/- ought to have been awarded under that head. Additional compensation which the appellant is entitled to get under that count is Rs.5,000/-. So the additional compensation payable to the appellant will be Rs.36,560/-. Since the appellant contributed 50% negligence, he is entitled to get only Rs.18.280/- as additional compensation. The third respondent is directed to deposit that amount with 7.5% interest from the date of application till realisation, over and above the amount decreed by the Tribunal. Appeal is allowed in part. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv