IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP (MACT).No. 3620 of 2011(O) --------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/04/2011 IN IA 2661/2010 IN OPMV.1177/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER -------------------- MADHUSOODANAN, S/O. KUMARAN, REMA BHAVAN, PUTHUVEL PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAKONAM, MACHEL.PO., MALAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. JUSTUS, 10/93, NADAVANATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, MANGALACKEL, AMACHEL, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. VIJAYAN, S/O. GOPALAN, NADAVANATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, MANGALACKEL, AMACHEL, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., K.N. MATHEW BUILDING, G.A. COIL ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001. 4. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, L.M.S COMPOUND, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAUPRAM - 695 001. BY THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(MACT)NO.3620/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 30/1/2010 IN O.P.(MV)NO.1177/2004 PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.NO.2661/2010 IN OP(MV)NO.1177/2004 DATED 20/4/2011 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA. RESPONDANT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- O.P(MAC).No.3620 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.1177 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara. By Ext.P1 award passed on 30.1.2010 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded the sum of Rs.9,400/- as compensation and directed the insurer of the vehicle, the third respondent herein, to deposit the said sum together with interest at 7.5% per annum from 17.7.2004, the date of the application, till the date of payment. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner unsuccessfully attempted a review of the award. By Ext.P2 order passed on 20.4.2011 the said application was rejected. Hence this original petition challenging Ext.P1 award and seeking payment of compensation as claimed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, a driver by profession, had in the claim petition stated that in the accident he suffered fracture of the left foot besides other minor injuries. He had also claimed the sum of O.P(MAC).No.3620 of 2011 -:2:- Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal no oral evidence was adduced. A copy of the wound certificate issued by the hospital, where the petitioner was treated as an out patient shortly after the accident, was produced and marked as Ext.A5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal considered the pleadings and the materials on record and held that there is no evidence to show that as a result of the injury the petitioner had suffered any disability or that besides the treatment as an out patient in PNM Hospital, Kattakada, he had undergone treatment elsewhere. In that view of the matter the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal held that the petitioner did not suffer any permanent disability as a result of the accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal however awarded the sum of Rs.9,400/- as compensation on various grounds. Though the petitioner moved the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for a review of the award aggrieved by the adequacy of the compensation awarded, the Tribunal was not inclined to entertain the review petition and it was dismissed by Ext.P2 order dated 20.4.2011. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by Sri.R.Gopan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have also gone through the materials on record. In the absence of any O.P(MAC).No.3620 of 2011 -:3:- proof to the effect that besides the treatment given to the petitioner as an out patient on the date of the accident, he had undergone any further treatment and any evidence to prove that besides the minor injury referred to in Ext.A5 wound certificate he had suffered any other injury which resulted in permanent disability, I am of the opinion that the finding of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that he has not suffered any permanent disability as a result of the injury suffered by him in the motor accident cannot be said to be perverse. In that view of the matter no interference is called for with the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the original petition. The original petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- O.P(MAC).No.3620 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 9th November, 2011