SUJESH Vs. K.K.MENON MOTOR SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant filed OP (MV) No. 2597/2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the injuries and consequent disability suffered by him in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned and driven by respondents 1 and 3 and insured with the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded compensation under various heads as follows:

(2.) The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the compensation to be awarded under Section 163A has to be strictly in accordance with the 2nd Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and the appellant is not entitled to claim anything more than that. It is contended that in view of the fact that there is no evidence to prove either the avocation or income of the appellant, only the notional income fixed in the 2nd Schedule should have been adopted by the Tribunal, which is only Rs. 1,250/-, whereas the Tribunal has adopted Rs. 1,500/-, which itself is on the higher side. It is also submitted that apart from the compensation under the heads mentioned in the 2nd Schedule, no other compensation is award able to the appellant. It is pointed out that specific amounts have been fixed for pain and suffering, medical expenses etc., maximum of which, has been awarded by the Tribunal and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any enhancement. It is also pointed out that in the 2nd Schedule, the proper multiplier for persons upto the age of 20 years is only 16, whereas the Tribunal has adopted 17, which is wrong. It is further submitted that the appellant has not suffered any permanent disability as defined under Section 142 and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation under Section 163A insofar as, only if permanent disability has been suffered, Section 163A can be applied.

(3.) We have considered the rival contentions in detail.