IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 74 of 2005 C ----------------------------------------- OPMV.906/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- SIRAJ, S/O. MOIDU, RESIDING AT MUDIYAKKARA HOUSE, P.O. PADINJARE VEMBALLOOR, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.LEJU T.BALAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. P.A.BASHEER, RESIDING AT PONAKUZHI HOUSE, EDAVILANGU P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MURALIDHARAN, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT KUMBALATH HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST. R2 BY ADV. SHRI C.V. BINAL ROY R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. NO. 74 OF 2005 C ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th August, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accident took place on 26.4.1998 and he has been awarded a sum of Rs.62,400/= as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/=. Aggrieved by the quantum, this Appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant was aged 17 at the time of accident and he was a cooli worker. He would contend that the tribunal has erred in taking only 5 per cent as disability, when there is evidence to MACA.NO.74/05C 2 show that he has suffered 12 per cent disability. The tribunal has apparently proceeded to reckon the disability at 5 per cent on the basis that the Doctor who issued the Certificate had issued the same in consultation with the Neuro Physician and the Doctor who issued the Certificate was an Orthopaedic who was not specialising in Neuro Science. The injuries suffered by the appellant are head injuries. We went through the Certificate. The Doctor appears to be an Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics. It could not be said that he was not having familiarity with the effects of fracture of parietal bone suffered by the appellant. He has referred to investigations. It is stated that there is malunited fracture of the right parietal bone and soft tissue due to operation on the parietal area. No doubt, he has also consulted the Neuro Physician. But, we would think that having regard to the nature of the injuries suffered, namely to the brain which resulted from malunited fracture of the right parietal bone and soft tissue and the deformity of the right parietal bone which, according to the Doctor, results in lack of MACA.NO.74/05C 3 concentration besides occasional loss of memory, we can fix the per centage of disability at 8 per cent instead of 5. On the said basis, the appellant will be entitled to Rs.8,640/= more which is rounded off to Rs.9,000/=. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.9,000/= more from the respondents with interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge