IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943 MACA NO. 917 OF 2013 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 147/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:

SUJITH S/O.THANKACHAN, KUTTIKATTU HOUSE, PATHAMPUZHA P.O., POONJAR THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.BABY THOMAS SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 JOSE MATHEW S/O.MATHEW, PURAKAYAM, KANAYANKAVAYAL P.O., PERRUVANTHANAM VILLAGE, MUNDAKAYAM - 685 532.

2 PRABKARAN KUDILIMATTATHIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.VIII/154, KUMALY, PIN - 685 509.

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIAN INSURANCE CO., PONKUNNAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT -

686 001. BY ADVS.

T.C.SOWMIAVATHY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,UNITED INDIA INSU OTHER PRESENT:

ADV.T.C SOUMIAVATHY-R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

04.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the Award passed in O.P.(M.V.)No.147/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. Claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) for compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant out of a motor accident occurred on 11.10.2008 at about 8.15 p.m. The above case was tried along with MACA No.430/2010 and a common Award was passed.

2. It is alleged that the claimant was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-3/N 2627 through National Highway 220 and when reached near Kuttikanam Junction a Jeep Reg.No.KL-5/G 4671 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle resulting in serious injuries to the appellant/claimant. Second respondent is the ownr of the jeep. The thrid respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. Third respondent insurer filed written statement admitting the policy coverage with respect to the offending vehicle. The rashness and negligence on the part of the first respondent, driver of the vehicle, is denied. It is contended that it is due to the negligence of the appellant/claimant that the accident occurred.

4. Exts.A1 to A15 were marked from the side of the appellant/claimant. There was no oral evidence from either side.

5. On evaluating the pleadings and the materials produced, Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The third respondent insurer was held liable to pay the amount. Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.50,589/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal appellant/claimant (hereinafter be referred as claimant) came up in appeal for various grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal.

7. Adv.Smt. Sowmiavathy appeared on behalf of the third respondent, insurer. Since the third respondent has admitted the insurance policy, notice on respondents 1 & 2 is dispensed with at the risk of the claimant. Both sides were heard. Lower court records were called for and perused.

8. According to the learned counsel for the claimant, the claimant was a Salesman, aged 23 years and claimed a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-. But the Tribunal took the monthly income as Rs.4,000/-, which, according to her, is very low. She would also contend that the claimant suffered grievous injuries and disability certificate certifying 6% permanent disability has been produced. But the Tribunal taken only 3% permanent disability. So she seeks for enhancement of compensation on all heads.

9. Claimant is aged 23 years and Rs.6,000/- has been claimed as monthly income. Though no evidence as such has been produced by the claimant to prove the actual income, as per the dictum laid down in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] the