IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 469 of 2005()
1. PRABHAKARAN P.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BENNEY, S/O.THOMAS,
... Respondent
2. MATHEW, THIRUNILATHU HOUSE,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
For Respondent :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :28/07/2009
O R D E R
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 = 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