IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 684 of 2004(C) -------------------------------- OPMV.1278/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PEETITIONER : --------------------------------- ANISH KURUVILLA (NOW MAJOR) S/O.K.U.KURUVILLA, MARUTHOOR HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O. NATTASSERY KARA, PERUMPAIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------------- 1. SALEEL, S/O.RAMA PANICKER, VELLIKALATHIL HOUSE, NEAR THEKKUMPALAM, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. ARUN.D.SOUZA, W/O.BRIG M.A. A.D.SOUZA, 161, PRATHAP CHAUK, DELHI, COMTT. NEW DELHI. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 684 OF 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV) No. 1278/1998. The claimant, a minor boy aged 11 years, sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 32,500/-. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Insurance Company. The learned counsel strongly contends before me that the Tribunal went wrong in not allowing the medical expense of Rs. 34,700/- which he had spent for root canal treatment and surgical removal. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in para 7 of the award and has opined that three cash bills serially numbered from 668 to 670 from the same clinic is issued in favour of the petitioner in different dates incorporating different amounts. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that they are obtained at a stretch which cannot be believed. Therefore I do not propose to interfere with the said rejection of that amount by the M.A.C.A.No. 684 OF 2004 -2- Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the loss of tooth and fracture of teeth which appears to be extremely reasonable compensation. But the Tribunal did not award any amount for the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. The boy must have become delicate and would have been feeling some sort of inferiority complex and that would have resulted in loss of amenities and enjoyment for some time. Considering that fact I am inclined to allow an additional amount of Rs. 5,000/-. All other heads of the award is sustained. Therefore the M.A.C.A is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm