IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 630 of 2006(A) ----------------------- OPMV.1558/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ------------------------- MADHAVAN NAIR, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, PULIYARATHALAKKAL THEKKE PUTHEN VEEDU, ARAVILAKONAM, KUNNATHUKAL, KARAKONAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. A.STALIN KUMAR, NEAR GOVT.L.P.S.MATHOORKONAM, ARUMANAI.P.O, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 2. JAYAKUMAR, S/O.MUTHAYYAN, CHOOTTORKONAM, PADINKKARATHARAVILAI VEEDU, ARUMANAI.P.O, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 4/08/2009, THE COURT ON 24/08/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.630 of 2006 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim, J. The claimant in OP(MV) No:1558/02 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara is in appeal seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded. The appellant sustained injuries while a goods vehicle bearing Regn:No:TAC-5566 hit against the motor cycle on which he was riding. The appellant sustained segmental fracture of right tibia upper third, segmental comminuted supracondylar fracture of right femur with bone loss, fracture of 3rd and 4th metacarpal right side, fracture of 2nd and 3rd toes right side, etc. He continued treatment as inpatient for quite a long period with an episode of non union of fracture followed by bone grafting surgery. He was under POP cast for a considerable period. He continued treatment for a period of more than 6 months. The injuries sustained to the appellant had resulted in persistent disability, which is assessed as 29%. In Ext.A15 Disability certificate the discomforts, incapacities and difficulties experienced by the appellant is described in detail. The appellant was a Teacher earning monthly income of about Rs.11,500/- per month. The Tribunal found that he continued in MACA.630/06-A 2 employment even after the accident. Therefore taking into consideration of diminished prospects of re-employment after retirement, compensation for continuing permanent disability was granted at Rs.38,400/- adopting notional income at Rs.2000/- per month and multiplier of 8. A total compensation of Rs.1,51,900/- was granted. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for 3rd respondent/insurance company. The appellant contended that the notional income at Rs.2000/- fixed by the Tribunal for the purpose of computing compensation for disability is highly unrealistic and inadequate. It is also contended that the Tribunal, inspite of specific evidence that the extent of disability is 29%, had reduced the same to 20% without any basis. It is also contended that various amounts awarded under different other heads are also inadequate and is on the lower side. 3. On an anxious consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and on evaluating the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that there is no basis or reasoning for reducing the extent of disability from 29% to 20%. So also we are of the opinion that the notional income adopted for computing compensation for permanent disability at Rs.2000/- per month is also on the lower side. In our moderate estimate MACA.630/06-A 3 we are inclined to fix the notional income for the purpose of computation at Rs.2500/-. Calculated on the basis of 29% disability with multiplier of 8, compensation for continuing permanent disability and loss of earning power need be re-fixed at Rs.69,600/- (2500x12x8x29%). This will entitle the appellant for an enhancement of Rs.31,200/-. We do not think interference is called for with respect to quantum of compensation awarded under any other heads. It is contended by the appellant that 6% interest granted by the Tribunal is on the lower side. We are persuaded to increase the rate of interest from 6% to 7.5%. In the result the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation of Rs.1,51,900/- awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs.31,200/-. The original amount of compensation as well as the enhancement granted in this appeal will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment. The 3rd respondent/insurance company is directed to make payment of the amount within a period of three months.\ C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb