IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1870 of 2010() ------------------------------ OPMV.2994/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN O.P.(MV) ------------------------------------------------ SHAHUL VIJAY (MINOR), AGED 11 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER, SRI.N.VIJAYAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHOYIKUTTY, RESIDING AT THIRUMANGALATH PARAMBA, THOTTUMARAM, POST POKKUNNU, CALICUT – 13. BY ADVS. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN O.P. (MV) ------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.MOHAMMED KOYA, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.BEERAN KOYA, KAITHAPADATH HOUSE, P.O.NELLIKODE, CALICUT-673 016. 2. SUSHEEL KUMAR P., AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.SAMI P., KAITHAVALPPU VEEDU, OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE – 673 016. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1, P.B.NO.533, WHITES LINES, KALLAYI ROAD, CALICUT – 673 002. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELEVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1870 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV)No.2994/2005. The claimant, a minor boy, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.23,329/=. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement. 2. A perusal of the award would reveal that the child had sustained fracture on the tibia, fibula, middle cranial fossa left side besides other injuries on the forehead. Radiological examination revealed sustainment of the fractures. The Tribunal held that though bills for Rs.40,679/= is produced, Rs.35,100/= is for advance bills. But suddenly the Tribunal says that the treatment bill is not produced. 3. I think the said approach is totally erroneous. The claimant can explain it and get that amount, if entitled. Similarly considering the nature of the fracture, I find loss of amenities awarded is grossly inadequate and, therefore I am of the view that matter to be considered afresh in : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1870 OF 2010 accordance with law. 4. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The claimant is also directed to take notice to the insurance company after he enters appearance before the court. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.01.2011. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1870 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 11th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T