IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 238 of 2004(B) ----------------------- OPMV.188/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. PAMGODAN, AGED 58 YEARS, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, POST CHUNANGAD, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. IBRAHIM, S/O. MOIDEEN, VALIYA PEEDIKACKAL HOUSE, POST CHUNANGAD, OTTAPALAM TALUK, (DRIVER OF KL 9B 1121 LORRY DL NO.62/93/P.O.BADAGE NO.62/94/PO VALID FROM 05/01/98 TO 04/01/2001). 2. V.P. MOIDEEN, S/O. KOYAKUTTY, VALIYAPEEDIKACKAL HOUSE, POST CHUNANGAD, OTTAPALAM TALUK (OWNER OF KL 9B 1121 LORRY). 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPNAY LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, FAIZAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, OTTAPALAM, (POLICE NO.101203/31/021/16/01613/1999 VALID FROM 9/7/1999 TO 8/7/00, INSURER OF KL 9B 1121 LORRY). ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R1 & R2 SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 238 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and the standing counsel appearing for the insurance company. Appellant's case is that he suffered extensive damage to his legs and the doctor treating him advised amputation. In order to avoid it he went to some place in Andhra Pradesh where he underwent treatment in some unconventional methods which saved his legs. According to him, expenditure incurred by him for treatment in Andhra Pradesh was not granted because the system of treatment was not recognised. We do not think any recognition is required for reimbursing expenditure for treatment because if the treatment is successful, the injured is entitled to compensation. In any case we find that even 20% disability certified by Orthopaedic surgeon is reduced to 2 five per cent by the MACT without any justification. Even though there may be some exaggeration about per centage of disability, we feel reduction of disability to five per cent is not justified. We therefore grant additional compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant, which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of deposit by the insurance company. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 3