P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

Whether a ‘Cross Objection’ will lie at the instance of the ‘Insured’, so as to negate the right of recovery conferred over the Insurer in respect of the liability, in an appeal preferred by the Claimant for enhancement, is the primary question to be considered in these proceedings.

2. The appeal arises from the accident occurred on 18.05.2000, when two motor cycles collided with each other causing injuries to the riders of the motor cycles, which led to the claim petitions preferred against the parties of the other vehicle, attributing negligence on the rider of the said vehicle. The first respondent who was stated as owner of the vehicle bearing No.KL-01-A3936 filed written statement contending that he was not the actual owner of the vehicle; that the ownership of vehicle was transferred to the 2nd respondent as on the date of the accident, that the vehicle was got released from the Police by none other 2nd respondent; simultaneously pointing out that the accident was only because of the negligence on the part of the rider of the other motor cycle, i.e., the claimant himself. The 2nd respondent filed written statement disputing the negligence attributed on him stating that the motor cycle bearing No.KL-01-3936 was actually ridden by the 1st respondent and that the accident was only because of the negligence on the part of the claimant who was riding the other motor cycle and further that the compensation claimed was very much on the higher side.

3. The 3rd respondent who is the insurer of the vehicle bearing No.KL-01-3936 contested the claim on many a ground, including negligence; simultaneously contending that the 2nd respondent had no driving licence and that there was clear violation of the statutory/policy condition. The 4th and 5th respondents also disputed the claim by filing separate written statements. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, the claimant and Exts.A1 to A7 produced from his side, while Ext.B1, is a true copy of the Policy issued by the 3rd respondent/Insurer. On conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the vehicle was actually owned by the 1st respondent, being the registered owner of the vehicle as revealed in the Police records and the pleadings and available testimony. It was also observed that the concerned motor cycle was in fact being ridden by the 2nd respondent. Referring to the steps taken by the Insurer of the said vehicle by filing I.A.2029/2001 calling upon for production of driving licence and as to the failure on the part of the concerned party, adverse inference was drawn and it was accordingly held that there was violation of the statutory/policy condition as contended from the part of the 3rd respondent/Insurer.

4. Coming to the quantum of compensation payable, the Tribunal, after referring to Ext.A3 wound certificate, observed in paragraph 11 of the Award that there was a compound fracture to the right tibia and fibula and ‘re-fracture’ of an old fracture to the right leg, besides other injuries. However, the permanent disability certified as 40% by the Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram vide Ext.A7 was not accepted by the Tribunal, for want of better evidence; whereby permanent disability was refixed by the Tribunal as 10%. As against the contention of the claimant that he was having a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- being a screen printer, the Tribunal chose to adopt a notional figure of Rs.2,000/- per month, for want of any legally acceptable evidence adduced from his side. Considering the fact that the claimant’s age was 28 years, appropriate multiplier was fixed as ‘18’ as provided under the 2nd schedule to S.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. After evaluating the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards pain and sufferings and taking note of the hospitalization for a period of 4 months and 17 days, loss of earning for 4 months was awarded at Rs.8,000/-, besides granting Rs.1,0