IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 397 of 2009(A) ---------------------- OPMV.2471/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER -------------- SNEHA C. MENON, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. CHANDRASEKHARA MENON, SNEHA NIVAS, EROOR DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI SMT.JINU JOHN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. HARI.C.C, CHAKKALAPRAMBIL HOUSE, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, NEAR VYASA VIDYALAYAM, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD WEST.P.O, KOCHI. 2. SAHIDA, W/O. HARI.C.C, -DO- 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SHAARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. ADV. SMT.N.N.GIRIJA FOR R1-2 SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR FOR R1-2 SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 397 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: OCTOBER 1, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This appeal is by the claimant who was involved in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.60270/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. According to the appellant the accident occurred while she was travelling as a pillion rider on a two wheeler. After quantifying the compensation the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the Insurance Company would not be liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle since the policy was an 'Act Only' policy. 2. The primary grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company, especially since evidently the policy was a 'package policy'. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company fairly submits that the policy was in fact a 'package policy'. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company is set aside. It is held that the 3rd respondent Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the compensation. M.A.C.A. 397 of 2009 2 4. The appellant has a further case that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is too meager and inadequate considering the nature of the injuries sustained by her. The appellant was aged 16 at the time of the accident. She had sustained fracture shaft of femur (L) apart from other minor injuries. Since the appellant had not produced any disability certificate, the Tribunal rightly refused to grant any compensation under that head. 5. However, the Tribunal is seen to have awarded a sum of Rs.7000/- for “discomforts and inconveniences”. It has come out in evidence that the appellant was constrained to use a walking stick for a considerable period and the injury had affected her studies for a few months. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the amount of Rs.7000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head “discomforts and inconveniences” can be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. We do so. To that extent the award is modified. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-