IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1092 of 2004()
1. STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUKU, S/O. SUNDARAN,
... Respondent
2. JOSEPH RAJ,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC
For Respondent :SRI.G.SUDHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :09/07/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1092 OF 2004
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV)875/00.
According to the claimant while he was riding on a scooter, a
Transport bus owned by the appellant hit on his bicycle
resulting in injuries to him. The Tribunal found the
negligence on the part of the bus driver and awarded a
compensation of Rs.40,400/- with 9% interest. It is against
that decision the Corporation has come up in appeal.
2. Heard the counsel for both sides. So far as the
negligence is concerned the anomaly pointed out was that
while giving particulars he has mentioned it as a K.S.R.T.C.
Bus and therefore the contention was taken up to the effect
that the appellant’s bus had not hit on him. But in the first
information statement, the number of the bus with route of
the bus has been very clearly indicated and therefore the
Tribunal rightly rejected that contention. It was only the
M.A.C.A. 1092 OF 2004
-:2:-
evidence of PW1 that was available and the driver of the
appellant did not enter the box to give any counter evidence.
The Police also filed a charge sheet against the driver of the
bus and therefore I do not propose to interfere with the
finding on the question of negligence.
3. So far as the quantum is concerned, the appellant
had sustained a fracture on the scapula. He was admitted in
the Medical College Hospital from 13.7.00 and discharged on
20.7.00. He was aged 24 years at the time of the accident.
The Tribunal took his income at Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal
also considered the disability certificate issued by one
Doctor, Vimalnath but reduced it to 5% and calculated the
compensation. Considering the nature of injuries sustained
and the treatment undergone I think the percentage of 5%
taken by the Tribunal is more than adequate. For a 24 year
old man the Tribunal, even in 2000, had taken an income of
Rs.2,000/- and had applied a multiplier of 17. So the
permanent disability compensation is granted very liberally
and therefore if any amount is awarded under the head of
M.A.C.A. 1092 OF 2004
-:3:-
loss of amenities in life, it will virtually amount to
overlapping in the sense that the other factor is also taken
into consideration while considering the permanent disability
compensation. On all other heads the Tribunal has used its
discretion and I do not want to interfere. Therefore the
compensation has to be reduced by Rs.5,000/-. Similarly,
the rate of interest is 9% which also has to be reduced to
7.5% in the light of the recent Apex Court’s decision.
Therefore the MACA is partly allowed and the award of
the Tribunal is modified and the claimant is awarded a
compensation of Rs.35,400/- with 7.5% interest on the said
sum from 15.9.2000 till realisation from respondents 1 and 2
and the appellant is directed to deposit the amount within 60
days on receipt of the copy of the judgment. Other orders
regarding the deposit etc. will be as directed by the Tribunal.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-