SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. REGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred against the award in O.P.(M.V.) Nos.224 of 2014 and 226 of 2014 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha by the insurer. The above petitions were filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for getting compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident and the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,82,300/- (Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Two Thousand Three Hundred only) in O.P.(M.V.) No.224 of 2014 and an amount of Rs.2,36,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Six Thousand only) in O.P.(M.V.) No.226 of 2014 with 9% interest and cost. Being aggrieved by that, the insurer preferred these appeals.

(2.) Claimants case in the lower court was that on 27.03.2012 while they were travelling in a vehicle KL17/D-2956 from Ernakulam to Marykulam and when they reached at Kathalikadu, the vehicle hit against an electric tower, as a result, they sustained serious injuries. Immediately they were removed to hospital. The 1st respondent driver and additional respondents 4 to 6 were ex parte in the lower court. The owner of the vehicle died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 6. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle. Both petitions were tried jointly. As per order in I.A. No.517 of 2015, the evidence was recorded in O.P.(M.V.) No.224 of 2014. Claimants did not adduce any oral evidence, but their documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A30. Respondents evidence consist of documentary evidence of Ext.B1. The learned Tribunal awarded the following amounts as compensation. CLASS="judgspara" CLASS="judgspara" CLASS="judgspara" CLASS="judgspara"

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in O.P.(M.V.) No.224 of 2014 contended that the injured is an Excise Guard, aged 49 years at the time of accident and he is continuing service in the Excise Department. His employment prospects were not affected due to permanent disability sustained in the accident. The income taken by the Tribunal is at very high rate and 40% was added with the multiplicand considering his future prospects, but actually he is entitled to get only 30% increase. In O.P.(M.V.) No.226 of 2014, the injured is an agriculturist and his monthly income is taken as Rs.7,500/- which is also high and the learned Tribunal added 50% future prospects instead of 25%. It is also contended that in injury cases, future prospects cannot be taken for awarding disability compensation and in case of a State Government employee or other employees in the Government Department, split multiplier has to be taken since after the retirement, they are getting a nominal amount.