JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the Appellant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 4.3.2013 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Motor Accident Claims Appeal No. 1716 of 2008, whereby the High Court, while disposing of the appeal of the Appellant, declined to increase the compensation under any other heads, holding that the Appellant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs. 2,03,200/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") with 9% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till date of payment with direction to Insurance Company to deposit the amount within two months.

3. Originally, there were three Respondents, Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending vehicle, Respondent No. 2 is the driver and Respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company, the insurer of the vehicle. Though, the name of Respondent No. 2 the driver has been deleted from the array of the parties vide Court's order dated 29.4.2015, for the sake of brevity and convenience the parties are referred to as per the rank assigned to them in the original proceedings before the Tribunal.

4. The relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the Appellant with a view to ascertain whether the Appellant is entitled for the enhancement of compensation as prayed in this appeal.

On 14.08.2000, the Appellant while driving a car on Valanchery Kottakkal Road, Malappuram District, Kerala was hit by a bus regd. No. KL13/A 6647, which was being rashly and negligently driven by the original Respondent No. 2 resulting in serious injuries to the Appellant. Due to this collision, the Appellant was seriously injured and was immediately taken to the nearest hospital at Kottakkal namely, Prasanthi Hospital wherein he was treated as an inpatient. The Appellant suffered multiple grievous body and head injuries and was hospitalized for 54 days in West Fort Hospital, Thrissur. The Appellant also underwent treatment from Mother Hospital on account of his blurred vision.

5. The Appellant approached the Tribunal Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by filing O.P. (MV) No. 1220 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs. 10,31,000/- under various heads for the grievous injuries he suffered in the road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by Respondent No. 2. Before the Tribunal, the doctor was examined who deposed that the Appellant suffered 60% body disability. Before the Tribunal Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were ex-parte. Respondent No. 3 (the Insurance Company) filed the written statement before the Tribunal admitting that the bus involved in the accident was insured with them. However, Respondent No. 3 claimed that they are not liable to pay compensation to the Appellant since he was under the influence of alcohol and was negligent while driving the car which caused the accident and therefore, the accident was not due to negligence of 2nd Respondent as claimed by the Appellant. They further contended that the age of the Appellant, injuries sustained, treatment undergone and the expenses incurred for treatment are wrongly stated in the petition. The Tribunal observed that the Appellant had suffered severe head injury with fracture of the right orbital wall, fracture transverse process C1 and Ts, fracture of the ribs on the right side, loss of two teeth, partial loss of vision with diplopia, torticollis neck, loss of hearing and incontinence of urine and motion right sided hemiplegia multiple bodily injuries. The Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and legal evidence on record partly allowed the petition and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Assessing the salary of the driver as Rs. 2,000/- per month