IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 1336 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------ [O.P(MV).NO.669/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR] .................... APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA), SRI.ALEXY AUGUSTINE, SMT.K.S.SANTHI, SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN. RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: -------------------------------------- BINEESHKUMAR K.C., S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN K.K., RESIDING AT KOCHERI HOUSE, AYYAMPILLY P.O., KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR). THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1336 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in OP(MV) No.669/2005. The claimant, an 18 year old man sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.95,800/-. It is against that decision, the insurance company has obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has come up in appeal. 2. Heard. A perusal of the award, paragraphs 8 and 9 would show that the learned Tribunal had been very liberal in granting compensation. Though materials were lacking, in paragraph 8, it is stated that the claimant had sustained the fracture of the patella and a corresponding injury therein. He was an inpatient in the hospital only for two days that is, from 11.06.2005 to 12.06.2005 and from 10.8.2005 to 11.08.2005. It is true that he had spent considerable amount for medical expenses, but it has been properly awarded by the Tribunal as well in lumpsum for treatment, transport expenses etc. The M.A.C.A. No. 1336 of 2010 2 Tribunal also took the disability at 10% even without a proper document and even without materials for continuity of treatment. Technically, medical evidence is not sufficient to find out disability, but the fact remains the boy had a fracture on the patella and it has affected his movement to some extent. Therefore, I feel by an appropriate guess, disability can be fixed at 4% and the income be taken at Rs.18,000/- per annum. By applying a multiplier of 18, as per the Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298) the disability compensation would come to 12,960 instead of 28,800/-. So the difference would be Rs.15,840/-. A full bench of this Court, to which I was a party had held that there cannot be overlapping of compensation under various head. When a reasonable compensation is awarded for disability, then the compensation to be awarded for loss of amenities should be nominal and therefore, I award it as Rs.5,000/- and reduce it by 7,000/-. For pain and suffering also and I reduce compensation by 5000/- by making it 15,000/-. When it is so the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.67,960/- M.A.C.A. No. 1336 of 2010 3 instead of 95,800/-. Therefore, the MACA is partly allowed and a revised award is passed as follows: The claimant is awarded a total compensation of Rs.67,960/- with 7% interest on the said sum on 07.10.2005 till realisation from the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The third respondent in the O.P that is, insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the amount is already deposited it shall be given credited. Regarding the other directions mentioned as A and B it will remain intact. Appeal disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE ln.