IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1213 of 2004() ---------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.2.2004 IN OPMV.2425/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD) .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------- VIPINDAS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, SREEKRISHNA RUBBER ESTATE, KOOTTALA, ERIMAYOOR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. G. MANIKANDAN, S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, MIKKATTIL HOUSE, LAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. VASANTHA KUMAR, S/O. PAZHANAN, MASU AGENCIES, PAZHAYANNUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R3 ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE & ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.1213 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties to the lis we are disposing of the appeal itself. Since the insurance is admitted we are not issuing notice to respondents. 2. Appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant has been awarded a total sum of Rs.40,150/- with 6 percent interest. This appeal is directed against the quantum. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent insurance company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would MACA 1213/2004 -2- submit that, the Tribunal erred in taking the disability only at 7%. According to him, A7 certificate would show that common disability is 12% as per Mc Bride's Scale. He further submits that the Tribunal ought not to have refused the sum of Rs.12,345/- being the amount spent towards medical expenses incurred during the year 2000. Finally, he submitted that the Tribunal has brushed aside the appellant's claim on the basis of his participation in the State and National level competition in rifle shooting stating that there is no evidence to prove that. The learned counsel points out that, in appeal, he has produced documents issued by the appropriate Association which would show that the appellant had participated in rifle shooting competition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the Tribunal has given reasoning for not accepting 12% disability as certified in A7. The counsel would point out that there is a refracture during surgery MACA 1213/2004 -3- and therefore there is no basis for upsetting the relief granted by the Tribunal. As far as the refusal to medical expenses is concerned the counsel would again point out that the reasoning given in para 15 supports his contention that no amount is to be granted towards medical expenses against the claim for Rs.12,345/-. As far as the refusal by the Tribunal to accept the percentage of disability certified in A7 is concerned we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant made available A7. A7 reads as follows: “Certified that Mr.Vipin das aged 24 years, Hospital No.89618, who was admitted in this hospital from 15/6/94 to 16/6/94 with fracture both bones (L) Forearm and was operated later for the same. He was re-admitted here on 2/2/2000 for removal of implants. During implant removal, refracture of (L) ulna occurred which was treated by reduction and internal fixation with plate and screws. He has inability to MACA 1213/2004 -4- rotate his forearm fully. Due to the second surgery he had a temporary disability of 25% for 8 weeks and a permanent disability of 12% according to Mc Bride's Scale.” 6. In the light of this we see no reason at all to increase the percentage of disability. The Tribunal has taken 7% disability and this cannot be stated to be a case where there is no reason at all for the Tribunal not to award the entire percentage of disability certified by the doctor. 7. As far as the question relating to compensation for career of the appellant being blighted, the Tribunal has refused compensation only on the ground that there is no evidence. The appellant has produced before us documents which would show that the appellant has participated in the shooting championship. The appellant was 18 years at the time of the accident. Therefore, this cannot be treated as a case where there is no evidence as stated by the Tribunal. Having regard MACA 1213/2004 -5- to the totality of circumstances we feel that we can award a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards loss of career in shooting. 8. The next question to be considered is whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for medical bills. On the one hand learned counsel for the appellant would point out that there was an implant and the medical bills related to the surgery in the year 2000. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submits that there is a refracture in the course of the surgery and it is not clear whether the medical bills are for the after effect of the said refracture. We would think that interest of justice would be met if we award Rs.6,000/- towards medical bills as against the claim for Rs.12,345/-. Thus, the appellant is entitled to Rs.14,000/- more. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is allowed to realise Rs.14,000/- more from the 3rd respondent with 7.5 percent interest from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. MACA 1213/2004 -6- I.A.No.2729 of 2004 is allowed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS