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 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 27 of 2009 --------------------------------- OPMV.987/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANTS / PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- SREEDHARAN, S/O.SANKARAN, KRISHNA NIVAS, PUNNATHURA KARA, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.A.K.RANI SRI.RENDEEP PREM SRI.PRAMOJ ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. ANISH MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, CHENATTU HOUSE, KOCHUKARINTHIRI KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. JOICE.P.J, S/O JOHN P.C, PULLICKAL HOUSE KIZHATHADIYOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3 SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR (128/84) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.27 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant who is the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala impugns the award on the ground that the Tribunal committed serious illegality while fixing the quantum of compensation. The contentions raised by the appellant are confined to two aspects: (a) The Tribunal was not justified in refusing to place any reliance on Ext.A6, disability certificate issued by an Orthopedic surgeon certifying that the appellant had suffered 9% disability due to the injury sustained by him on the distal end of left radius on his left hand. (b) Tribunal granted only Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income reckoning that he was on leave from duty for 30 days only whereas Ext.A7 certificate indicated that he was on leave for 45 days. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing counsel for the Insurance company and perused Exts.A6 and A7 certificates. 3. In Ext.A6 certificate the doctor who issued the same had stated thus: “considering the type of movements at the wrist and fingers the total permanent disability is assessed to 9% only”. 4. It is true that the appellant had sustained closed fracture of distal end of left radius and laceration on right 5th toe. He underwent closed manipulative reduction, percutaneous K - wire fixation and POP cast. He was discharged from the hospital on the next day. The Tribunal, while dealing with Ext.A6 disability M.A.C.A.No.27 OF 2009 :: 2 :: certificate noticed, rightly in our view, that the so called disability to the hand did not have any bearing on the income earning capacity of the appellant who is a teacher by profession. The Tribunal further observed that unlike a manual labourer the disability to the left hand of a teacher would not have affected his profession. Moreover, the doctor who issued Ext.A6 certificate was not examined. 5. Having perused Ext.A6 certificate and having considered the view taken by the Tribunal, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. As rightly noticed by the Tribunal, the appellant who was admittedly a school teacher at the time of the accident (he was 53 at that time) the injury which he sustained on the left hand would not have any bearing on his teaching capacity. The certificate issued by the Doctor also is not at all conclusive or convincing, to say the least. More importantly, Ext.A6 certificate is seen to have been issued on May 31, 2008. Appellant was 53 years at the time of the accident. Obviously, by the time the disability certificate was issued, the appellant had retired from service. In that view of the matter also, we do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal. 6. As regards the second contention, it may be noticed that in Ext.A7 certificate it was certified by the Head of the institution that the appellant was on leave for 45 days from October 3, 2006 to November 16, 2006. He was on Leave Without Allowance for 30 days from October 18, 2006 to November 16, 2006. It may be true that going by the certificate he was on leave for 45 days. But the certificate showed that he was on leave without allowance for only 30 days. It was keeping in view the above aspect that the Tribunal had awarded Rs.12,000/- M.A.C.A.No.27 OF 2009 :: 3 :: towards loss of income. Therefore, the Tribunal, in our view, was justified in restricting the loss of income to the said extent. 7. We do not find any merit in the above two contentions raised before us by the appellant. Appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes