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 MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 85 of 2004(C) --------------------- OPMV.1551/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT-PETITIONER IN O.P(M.V)NO.1551/98. --------------------------------------------------------- K.T.DEVASSY, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, KAVALAKKATTU HOUSE, MAMBRA, KARUKUTTY.P.O., ANGAMALY (VIA) BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN O.P(M..V) NO.1551/99 -------------------------------------------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.VELAYDHAN, DOOR NO.56A, LAKSHMIPURAM II LANE, BEHIND GANDHI STATUE, UDAYARPALAYAM NORTH.P.O., ATTUR, SALEM (DIST.) TAMIL NADU (STATE). 2. R.PALANIAPPAN, S/O.RAMASAMY, 171, VELLAPADIGAM PARAI, VALAYAMDEVI ROAD, VALAYAMDEVI.P.O., ATTUR, SALEM (DIST), TAMIL NADU STATE. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 637, CUDDALORE MAIN ROAD, ATTUR, SALEM (DIST), TAMIL NADU (STATE). 4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KALLOOKARAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, ANGAMALY. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.85 of 2004 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim,J. 1. Appellant is the claimant before the Tribunal. He sustained injuries when a Lorry hit against the Motor Cycle on which he was riding. Appellant was aged 38 years at the time of accident. He was working as a 'Supervisor' under a Contractor at Cochin Shipyard and claimed that he was getting monthly salary of Rs.6500/-. The appellant sustained fracture on zygomatic maxillary area left and fracture of left temporal fossa and floor of temporal fossa along with other severe injuries. The Tribunal adopted income of the appellant as Rs.2000/- and granted a total compensation of Rs.68,700/-. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 insurance companies. The Tribunal held that the Lorry involved in the accident was negligent and hence 4th respondent is held as liable to pay compensation. The appellant contended that having produced Ext.A9 salary certificate and Ext.A13 series income tax returns, and examined the employer as PW1, the Tribunal had MACA.85/04 2 not accepted income of the appellant as per the evidence adduced. It is further contended that the injuries sustained are of very severe nature and the appellant is suffering from permanent disabilities. But the Tribunal had failed to grant any compensation under the head of compensation for permanent disability. It is further contended that temporary loss of earning granted for a period of 5 months is highly inadequate considering the prolonged treatment. It is also contended that the Tribunal had failed in granting any amount towards expenses for future treatment. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent insurance company on the other hand contended that considering the documentary and oral evidence the Tribunal had awarded reasonable amounts under different heads and no enhancement is called for. 3. Having evaluated the evidence on record and considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that depending on the documentary evidence reasonable amount has already been granted by the Tribunal. But considering the severe nature of the injury sustained we are of the opinion that there might be chances of persistent disability. But no specific amount of compensation under that head was claimed nor granted for want of proper evidence. We MACA.85/04 3 are of the opinion that the monthly income adopted for the purpose of granting temporary loss of earning is slightly on the lower side. Considering the overall situation we feel that slight enhancement of the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal will be just and reasonable to meet the ends of justice. On our moderate estimate we are inclined to enhance the total compensation by a further sum of Rs.10,000/-. 4. In the result the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the total compensation of Rs.68,700/- awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs.10,000/- which will carry the same rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition till payment. The 3rd 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. okb