JACOB KURUVILA Vs. BABU JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The injured petitioner comes up in appeal seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(M.V.) No.476 of 2008. He filed the said claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.01.2008. On that day, while he was standing by the side of Chottanikara-Thiruvankulam public road at Ambadimala, he was knockdown by a mini lorry bearing Registration No.KL-14/1531. On sustaining injuries, he was taken to Ernakulam Medical Centre and he remained there as an inpatient for a period of 20 days. The injury sustained by him resulted in permanent disability. The appellant claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000.00 and the Tribunal as per the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs. 94,000.00 with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition, till realisation. The appellant seeks enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in this appeal.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent insurance company. The rival contentions raised before us reveal that there is no dispute with regard to the cause of accident, as also the liability of the third respondent to indemnify the insured owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, we proceed to consider the question as to whether or not the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income erroneously disregarding the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2008 and the appellant was then aged 43 years. It is further contended that the Tribunal went wrong in reducing the extent of disability certified by Ext.A7. It is also contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal under different heads, as can be seen from the schedule of compensation given in the impugned award, are on the lower side and therefore, the same require an upward modification. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent resisted the said contention and submitted that the appellant was granted just compensation considering the injuries sustained and therefore, no appellate interference is called for.