PALLATH PERU GEORGE Vs. N.K.RAHOOF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 1396/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, is the appellant herein. The appellant filed the application for compensation for the injuries and consequential disabilities sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.50,100/ - on various heads as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1437_TLKER0_2013.htm</FRM> Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has come before this Court with the above appeal.

(2.) HEARD counsel for the appellant and counsel for the Insurance Company.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered that he is having only 3% disability and though the certificate was issued by a private doctor, awarded reasonable amount under the head 'loss of earning capacity'. The learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal went wrong in taking 15 as the multiplier as, as per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2010(2) KLT 802, the proper multiplier applicable to the age group of 49 years is 13 and not 15. So, according to the learned counsel, the total compensation awarded is just and proper and no interference is called at the hands of this Court.