IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 1199 of 2002(Y) ---------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.2159/1995 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI. .................... APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MANJERI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, THIRD PARTY CLAIM CELL, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.T.FATHIMA SUHRA, W/O.VEERANKUTTY, KENIYARA HOUSE, P.O. KIZHISSERI. 2. K.SATHAR, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, KOPPATH HOUSE, PANDIKKAD. 3. ALAVIKUTTY, CHERIKODE HOUSE, MANJERI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS - R1. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 7297/2002 IN M.F.A. NO. 1199/2002-D DISMISSED 02/06/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.F.A. No. 1199 OF 2002 --------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, in OP(MV) 2159/95. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.80,850/-. The medical board prescribed the disability at 4%. 2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the materials available really does not warrant such a huge compensation and also would submit that granting of compensation on the basis of spinal disability is incorrect. He would submit before me that the injury is on the right hand as well as on the right leg. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not elaborately dealt with the matter and that has created the confusion. 3. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent made available before me the documents that had been produced before the Tribunal. The accident had taken place on 9.5.95 and it can be seen that there was a persistent complaint of back ache made by the 1st respondent. It is seen in the reference dated 16.6.95. Thereafter it can be seen that there had been treatment for spine and a prolonged MFA NO.1199/02 2 OP consultation as well as Ayurvedic treatment. So it is very clear that there had been some problem for her on the back immediately after the accident. Even if it was there previously certainly, this would have increased the same. There were also some contusions on that part. Therefore, one cannot rule out the involvement of a spine injury also as a result of the accident. The Tribunal had granted medical expenses on that basis and it has accepted the disability percentage as certified by the medical board and awarded the compensation. For prolonged treatment only a reasonable amount of Rs.15,000/- is given for pain and suffering. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation separately for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. So taking into consideration all these factors, one cannot hold that the Tribunal has awarded huge compensation which is not just and reasonable. On a perusal of the records, I am satisfied that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is only just and reasonable. Therefore the MFA lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MFA NO.1199/02 3