IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 659 of 2008(G) ---------------------- OPMV.2432/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER; ----------------------------------- GOKUL, AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF AYYAPPAN, OZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO. 1330, NEAR WEST OF CHURCH, Y.M.J.ROAD, MAMANGALAM, EDAPPALLY. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SURESH KUMAR.B., HOTEL AMBADY, NEAR K.S.R.T.C.BUS STAND, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PALARIVATTOM BRANCH, MYDHILY MANDIRAM, JANATHA JUNCTION, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682025. ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 659 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV) No. 2432/2000. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 66,660/-. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement. 2. The learned counsel for the claimant would contend before me that though a disability certificate of 10% has been produced, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration on the ground that it has not effect his earning power. I cannot agree with such an observation made by the Tribunal because the Medical Board has assessed the disability at 10% as per Mc Bride Scale and it has also observed that there is restriction in knee and hip movement. The claimant is running a Hotel business which is a small scale business. It requires supervision as well as physical exertion and the disability would certainly have an impact on the same. Therefore it was not correct on the part of the Tribunal to totally ignore the disability certificate and to calculate the compensation. If the disability is MA.A.C.A.No. 659/2008 -2- taken at 5% and income as Rs. 30,000/- per annum as fixed by the Tribunal, the disability per annum will come to Rs. 1,500/- which when multiplied with an appropriate multiplier of 16 would be Rs. 24,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- under that head. Therefore the claimant will be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 9,000/- under that head. Since the Tribunal has already awarded a liberal compensation for pain and suffering and other heads, I am not inclined to grant anything more for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Since there was a breach of policy condition, the Insurance Company is entitled to get it reimbursed from the owner. Therefore the M.A.C.A is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 9,000/- with 7.5% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The Insurance Company is permitted to get it reimbursed from the owner of the vehicle namely the first respondent. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm