IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 469 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.919/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT -------------------------------- PRABHAKARAN P., PUTHUVALLIL HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM KARA, VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. BENNEY, S/O.THOMAS, MANGALATHUTHARA HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM KARA, VILLAGE, VAIKKOM. 2. MATHEW, THIRUNILATHU HOUSE, THYKKATTUSSERY NADUBHAGOM KARA, THYKKATTUSSERY. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.ANIL S. RAJ FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 469 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. We are disposing of the appeal itself on merit. 2. The appellant was the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He claimed compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,43,200/- The appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation granted. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal had erred in taking 56 as the age of the appellant. According to the counsel, the judgment was pronounced in 2002 and apparently it is on that basis that the Tribunal has found the age of the appellant as 56 years. M.A.C.A.No. 469 of 2005 2 According to him, the appellant was aged 50 years at the time of the accident. Going by the Schedule, the multiplier should have been 11, the counsel contends. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the income taken as Rs.2,000/- is inadequate. The amount awarded towards pain and sufferings, Rs. 30,000/- is also not adequate. The appellant has suffered brain injury and he was in the hospital for 1 ½ months. Future treatment is also required for him. Towards that some amount should have been awarded. As far as the question of income is concerned, the date of th accident in in 1996. The appellant was a Carpenter. Absolutely no oral or documentary evidence was adduced regarding the income derived by the appellant. We are not inclined to increase the amount awarded under th above head. 5. The next question to be considered is whether the age of the appellant was correctly taken as 56 and what is to be the multiplier adopted. Going by the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the multiplier 8 is taken on the basis that the appellant was M.A.C.A.No. 469 of 2005 3 aged 56 years and Rs.79,200/- was arrived at by the Tribunal. If actually 8 had been taken as the multiplier and 30% disability was applied and Rs.2,000/- was treated as the monthly income, the amount would have been Rs.57,600/- If 11 is taken as the multiplier and all the other components are not changed, then the amount would be Rs.79,200/- This is precisely what the Tribunal had arrived at. Going by the decision of th Apex Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298) the multiplier for the age group 46 to 50 should be 13. 6. Let us examine the materials in regard to the age of the appellant. In the petition filed in 1997, the age of the appellant was shown as 53 years. In th certificate issued by Dr.Iqbal, which was produced by the appellant, also the age of the appellant was shown as 52 years as on 3.9.1996. In the medical certificate also it is shown as 52 years. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant is aged above 50 years at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant refers to the S.S.L.C. certificate. But it was not produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, the age of the M.A.C.A.No. 469 of 2005 4 appellant is 52 years, going by the materials which were referred to. The correct multiplier has been applied and the entire percentage of disability was taken into account. Therefore, there is no warrant to further increase the amount. 7. After awarding the entire amount under the head disability, the Tribunal has awarded a further sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of earning power, which is impermissible in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court. In view of the fact that an excess amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted to the appellant, we are of the view that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and there is no scope for any enhancement. 8. The appeal fails and is dismissed. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm