IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 1541 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.74/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- JOSE ABRAHAM, THAMARASSERIL HOUSE, PARATHUMPARA, PANACHICADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.A. SAMUEL, CHASRIVUPURAYIDATHIL NELLIKAMON, RANNY. 2. SURESH, CHAMACHERIL HOUSE, MANARCADU KARA, DO. VILLAGE. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.R.REJI & SMT. SHIVA RAJARESHMI FOR R2 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1541 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant in a road accident. The accident was occurred by collision between the appellant's two wheeler and a car. The accident was found to have been caused by the car and the insurer was held liable to pay compensation. Injury sustained by the appellant is only fracture of the right femur which led to hospitalisation for a month. Since the accident left no permanent disability on the appellant who was a college lecturer, MACT granted compensation under other heads, except for loss of earning. Counsel for the appellant contended that disallowance of medical bills of around Rs. 14,000/- is not justified. However, senior counsel Sri. Mathews Jacob appearing for the insurance company contended that the bills disallowed were from 23.2.1998 and that such bills relate to a subsequent fall that the appellant had in the year 1998. Counsel for the appellant contended 2 that the injury sustained in the subsequent fall is also attributable to the earlier accident. We are unable to accept this contention for several reasons. In the first place, there is nothing to indicate that the second accident led to fracture of the same femur at the same place. Since this was the injury in the first accident, appellant cannot claim that injuries of other nature sustained to other parts of the body in the subsequent fall are attributable to the earlier accident. Therefore this contention is rejected. However, we find force in the contention of counsel for the appellant that costs of litigation awarded is inadequate. Even though costs awarded and the actual expenses incurred for litigation do not tally, invariably the claimants end up paying high fees. Therefore we award Rs. 5,000/- towards costs which the insurance company is directed to deposit with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of deposit. Appeal is allowed as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk 3