IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 370 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.438/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SABURAJ, S/O. GANGADHARAN, AGED 28 YEARS, PARAKKULATHU HOUSE, KATTEKKANAM KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SIVANKUTTY.R, S/O. RAGHAVAN, CHERUVALLIL HOUSE, ANNYARTHOLU.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM. 3. ANILKUMAR, S/O. SIVANKUTTY, CHERUVALLIL HOUSE, EDATHVAMEDU BHAGOM, ANNYARTHOLU.P.O. BY // THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO.370 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claims an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident. He is a coolie aged 25 years. He had suffered fracture of the clavicle and other external injuries. He was an inpatient for six days in two different hospitals. He allegedly had suffered disability and went to the Medical Board and obtained Ext.A9 disability certificate to show that he has disability to the tune of 12%. The Tribunal considered the claim of the appellant and awarded a total amount of Rs.57,990/- as per the details which are given in paragraph 14 of the impugned award. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. The monthly income of the appellant was reckoned at Rs.3,000/- per mensem. Even though Ext.A9 certificate showed the disability to be 12%, the Tribunal was not prepared to swallow the details given in Ext.A9 in the light of the fact that no doctor who was responsible for issuing the certificate had been examined before the Tribunal. The Tribunal further looked into the nature of the alleged disability described M.A.C.A. NO.370/2009 2 in Ext.A9 and was of the opinion that the quantification of the percentage of physical disability given therein cannot be swallowed as the alleged disability were pain over left shoulder, restriction of rotation of movement of left shoulder without specifying the extent of restriction of the rotation of movement, pain on lifting weight on the left upper limb and repeated episodes of headache. 2. We are satisfied that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in not accepting Ext.A9 as gospel of truth regarding computation of the extent of disability. In the absence of better evidence and in the light of the nature of disability described in Ext.A9, the award of Rs.24,480/- as a composite compensation for disability does to us appear to be fair, reasonable and just and no interference is warranted. 3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO.370/2009 3 R. BASANT & & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.370/2009 JUDGMENT 16th February, 2009 M.A.C.A. NO.370/2009 4