IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 688 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.1358/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- RAVIKUMAR, S/O.GOPALA PANIKKAR, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KAIPARAMBU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 --------------------------------- 1. BABU, S/O. CHANDRAN, MALLOTH HOUSE, P.O.CHITTILAPPILLY, THRISSUR. 2. DIJESH, S/O.BHASKARAN, EDATHALA HOUSE, P.O.CHITTILAPPILLY, THRISSUR. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 688 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. Claimant before the Tribunal is in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. He sustained fracture to L2, L3 and L4 vertebrae along with various other lacerations and contusions. He had undergone prolonged treatment. Medical records produced before the Tribunal revealed that the injuries sustained had resulted in some sort of permanent disability and he had difficulties like severe back pain and pain on leg. He is continuously using belt for lumbosacral support. In Ext. A10 certificate, the permanent disability of the appellant is assessed as 14%. But the Doctor who had issued the certificate was not examined. The appellant is a Bank employee who was getting monthly salary of about Rs. 16,000/- at the time of the accident. It has come out in evidence that he is continuing in the same employment after the treatment. The Tribunal awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for permanent disability and awarded a total 2 compensation of Rs. 1,10,550/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the third respondent-insurance company. The appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the disability certificate and fixed the compensation based on the multiplier method. It is also contended that inspite of evidence regarding disability, the Tribunal failed in not awarding compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. 3. On an anxious consideration of the evidence on records, and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal awarded lumpsum compensation under the head of permanent disability since there is lack of proper evidence to prove the extent of disability claimed. However, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- fixed by the Tribunal is slightly on the lower side. The Tribunal ought to have allowed compensation under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. On our moderate estimate, an increase in total compensation by a sum of Rs. 15,000/- will be just and reasonable to meet the ends of justice. 3 In the result, appeal is allowed in part enhancing the total compensation of Rs. 1,10,550/- awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till payment. The third respondent-insurance company is directed to make payment of the amount within a period of three months. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C. K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk 4