IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 453 of 2005(C) ----------------------------------- O.P.M.V.NO. 471/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- HARSHA, W/O. JEEVAN, CHERADY HOUSE, KUNJITHAI P.O., CHETTIKAD. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. C.A.SAJEEVAN, S/O. AYYAPPANKUTTY, CHEMAMKADAVIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM, KOCHI TALUK. 2. SUDHI, S/O. SUKUMARAN, CHERIYAPADATH HOUSE, KOTTUVALLIKAD P.O., MALIANKARA. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MUNCIPAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, NORTH PARUR. ADV. SRI.J.MATHAPPAN FOR R3. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.453 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 30th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV)No.471 of 2002. The claimant sustained fracture of the tibia and she was treated in the hospital as an inpatient for a period of two days. Her leg was under plaster cast for almost 2 ½ months. The claimant also produced a disability certificate for 10%. Learned counsel had made available before me the said certificate which would show that she had chronic synovitis of left knee and left ankle, mild thickness and tenderness of bone at fracture site. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 10%. The Tribunal totally ignored the disability certificate for the reason that the Doctor was not examined. Unfortunately, the claimant also did not mount the box to prove that document. The Tribunal cannot be blamed for such an act, but it should have considered these factors while awarding compensation. The factum that she was under plaster cast for 2 ½ months indicates that she has been suffering a lot. So I feel that in a case of this nature, pain and suffering MACA 453/2005 -:2:- undergone should have been severe, only an amount of Rs.7,000/- is awarded by the Tribunal under that head. So, on an overall consideration of these facts, I feel this is a fit case where an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be awarded for the loss of amenities, disability and for pain and suffering as additional compensation. Therefore MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-