IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 1738 of 2009() -------------------- OPMV.1676/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA ................................................. APPELLANT / PETITIONER IN OP (MV) : ----------------------------------------------------- ANTO, S/O.KOCHUVAREED, MEKKADAN HOUSE, PARIYARAM DESOM, PARIYARAM P.O., MUKUNGAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN OP (MV) : --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GEORGE, S/O.JOSE, PANAKKAL HOUSE, OLARI P.O. 2. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THRISSUR. R2 BY ADV. DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1738 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)1676/01. This is a second round of litigation. The claimant who has sustained injuries in a road accident was awarded a compensation of Rs.36,000/- and the insurance company was exonerated from the liability on the ground that no additional premium was paid. It is against that decision an appeal was preferred before this Court and I had remanded the case back to consider the liability of the insurance company as well as the quantum. By the subsequent decision and the clarificatory circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority since the M.A.C.A. 1738 OF 2009 -:2:- vehicle was covered by a package policy the insurance company was made liable. The claimant had produced a disability certificate even at the time of the first appeal and the Tribunal has rejected his contention on the ground that no evidence is adduced to prove the disability. But in spite of giving an opportunity to the claimant to substantiate his contention by way of remand, the case did not improve and he did not take any effective steps to satisfy the conscience of the Court regarding the alleged disability. But the Court on a consideration of the material compensated some thing more for the loss of one tooth and thereby the compensation was increased from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.38,000/-. Therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with respect to the quantum. M.A.C.A. 1738 OF 2009 -:3:- 2. The only other point is regarding the interest. Now the rate of interest that is ordinarily given is 7.5% but it is seen that the Tribunal has only awarded 6%. It requires interference. Therefore the entire award amount will bear an interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till realisation. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-