IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 624 of 2003() -------------------------------- OPMV.149/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., (MADURAI DIVISION III), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAGER COIL, K.K.DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MADATHIL S.ANILKUMAR SMT.D.JAMEELA DEVI RESPONDENTS/ APPLICANT & 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. J.ROBINSON, S/O. JOHNSON NADAR, ROSS COTTAGE, CHERUVALLOOR, DEVICODE K.K.DISTRICT. 2. DHARMARAJ, KESAVANPUTHOOR, NAGERCOIL, K.K.DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A - R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.2270/2003 IN MACA. NO.624/2003 DISMISSED 07/07/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 624 OF 2003 --------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, in OP(MV) 149/0. The claimant aged 51 years, claiming to be a pastor cum casual labourer, sustained fracture of both bones of the leg and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.63,900/- with 9% interest. It is against that decision the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. Learned counsel for the claimant had made available before me the documents for perusal. It can be seen from the award that immediately after the accident he was taken to a Government Hospital and from there he was admitted in a private hospital namely Bensam Hosptial. He had undergone inpatient treatment there from 29.12.00 to 16.1.01. It also would reveal that he had fracture of both bones of the leg. He also produced a disability certificate issued by a Doctor fixing his disability at 20%. A reading of the disability certificate would reveal that the Doctor had arrived at that disability on account of the representation given by the claimant including shortening of the leg. He has not conducted any radiological examination to find as to whether the fracture is malunited and whether there is shortening of the leg. Even the MACA No.624/03 2 Tribunal was not prepared to accept the disability certificate as such but took 10% disability and calculated the compensation. 3. Considering the nature of the injury, the period of hospitalisation and the further treatment, 10% disability also appears to be on the higher side. It will be sufficient if 7% is taken. If 7% disability and Rs.24,000/- is taken as the annual income, the loss of earing will come to Rs.1,680/- which when multiplied by 11 would come to Rs.18,480/-. So the excess compensation awarded will come to Rs.7,920/- (26,400-18,480/-), which I fix it as Rs.8,000/-. Similarly over and above this, the Tribunal has again awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities which also has to be reduced by Rs.2,000/-. The Tribunal has also awarded interest of 9% whereas the rate of interest as per the Apex court's decision need be only 7.5%. Therefore the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is modified as follows: The claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.53,900/- with 7.5% interest on the said amount from 30.1.01 till realisation and the mode as ordered by the Tribunal in its award. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.624/03 3