IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 259 of 2005()
1. K.P.ELDHOSE,AGED 33 YEARS, SON OF
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.M.RAHIM,ANAKKATT HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. M.N.MANOJ,S/O. NARAYANA KAMATH,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :07/08/2009
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A. NO: 259 OF 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th Day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
K. M. Joseph J.
The appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim of the appellant
was for Rs.2,12,750/- The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of
Rs.55,500/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded,
this appeal is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the respondents, who appeared before us.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the
Tribunal should have awarded disability compensation applying the
multiplier method. This is a case where the Medical Board has
assessed the disability at 15%. Further, the contention is that the
Tribunal ought to have been taken the income of the appellant at as
claimed as Rs.2,000/- On this basis, more amount should have been
M.A.C.A . NO: 259 OF 2006
:2:
awarded towards loss of earning. Only Rs.3,000/- is awarded taking
income of the appellant at Rs.1,500/- and treating the period of loss of
earning, as only two months.
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the
award.
5. This a case where the Medical Board certified the disability
at 15%. In the Certificate it inter-alia stated that
“Knee flexion is 900
Ankle plantar flexion is 200
Ankle dorsiflexion is 100”
It is also stated that he had Type II fracture of both bones (R ) leg,
fracture base of (L) 3rd meta carpal. Accordingly the disability is
assessed as partial permanent orthopaedic disability at 15%. approved
by Mecbrides scale.
6. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- without
applying multiplier. We would think the appellant can be awarded a
compensation under disability by applying the multiplier. The Tribunal
has noted that the appellant was aged below 33 of age group of
M.A.C.A . NO: 259 OF 2006
:3:
evidence which would have been meant in the age of 26-30 at the time
of the accident. This means that going by the judgment of Apex Court
in Serala Verma & Others V. Delhi Transport Corpn. and anotehr
(2009 ACJ 1298)’s case the multiplier appropriate is 17.
7. In the Certificate issued by Medical Board it is not stated
that it is the whole body disability. The Tribunal also found that the
appellant is running his own catering unit services. Therefore, the
disability percentage can be fixed at 10%. On this basis, the appellant
would be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,600/- more by taking the annual
income as Rs.18,000/- fixing the percentage of disability at 10% and
taking the multiplier as 17.
8. Learned counsel for the third repondent would submit, if
the Court grants enhancement, the court may reserve the right to
recover the same from respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal has found
that it is entitled to recover the amount of compensation from
respondents from 1 and 2. The third respondent will be at liberty to
recover the amount from respondents 1 and 2.
M.A.C.A . NO: 259 OF 2006
:4:
9. In such circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part and the
appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.15,600/- more from
respondents 1,2 and 3 along with interest at 7.5% from the date of
petition till the date of realisation. The third respondent will be at
liberty to recover the amount as permitted by the Tribunal.
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE
dl/