IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1248 of 2011(E) ----------------------- OPMV.1030/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER ------------------------ GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CHERUR HOUSE, P.O.VADOOKARA, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SREEDEVI UNNIKRISHNAN, PALLATH HOUSE, 'SRUTHI',PERUMBILLISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 121. 2. UNNIKRISHNAN,PALLATH HOUSE,'SRUTHI', PERUMBILLISSERY,THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 121. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, P.B. NO. 66,ALENGADAN BUILDINGS, TANA,IRINJALAKUDA 680 121. ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1248 of 2011-E ***************************** Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 22.02.2005. He had suffered multiple injuries as a result of the accident. He was an inpatient from 22.02.2005 to 28.02.2005 (6 days). He had suffered external injuries including crush injuries on right ear, upper one third with loss of cartilage. He had further suffered fracture of the right frontal bone. There were episodes of positional vertigo (post traumatic) during hospitalisation. He continued treatment as an outpatient also. Against a total claim of Rs.1,03,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.35,000/- as per the details given in para.11 of the impugned award, which we extract below: Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 1 For loss of earning Rs. 5,000.00 2 For transportation Rs. 750.00 3 For extra nourishment Rs. 1,500.00 4 For damages to clothing Rs. 500.00 5 For treatment Rs. 7,749.00 6 For bystander Rs. 1,500.00 7 For pain and suffering Rs.12,000.00 M.A.C.A No.1248/11 2 Sl.No. Head of claim Amount awarded 8 For discomfiture Rs. 6,000.00 Total Rs.34,999/- rounded off to Rs.35,000/- The insurance company was made entirely liable. The challenge is raised only against the quantum of compensation awarded. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned award primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has not taken into account the permanent disability suffered by him. According to the appellant, he had altogether produced 8 documents before the Tribunal as per a list of documents. Document No.7 in the list is a disability certificate. That disability certificate showed that the appellant was having post traumatic positional vertigo. He was having chronic head ache as a consequence of the accident. His permanent disability was assessed by the doctor, who issued the said disability certificate, as 5%. The Tribunal did not mark this document. According to the appellant, it is an omission to mark the document. There was an omission to refer to that document also. In these circumstances, the quantum of compensation deserves to be re-worked according to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant prays that an opportunity may M.A.C.A No.1248/11 3 be granted to the appellant to adduce necessary further evidence in support of his claim for compensation. He may be permitted to examine himself and if necessary to get his disability competently assessed by a medical board. He may be permitted to adduce evidence about such disability also, it is prayed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. We have perused a copy of the disability certificate, which is said to be produced as document No.7 before the Tribunal in the list of documents. Having anxiously considered all the relevant circumstances, we feel that the interests of justice will be served ideally by granting the appellant a further opportunity to substantiate his claim. Such course, we are satisfied, shall eminently serve the interests of justice. We say so, because we are not satisfied that just and reasonable compensation has been awarded to the appellant by the Tribunal. To do that, necessarily reference must be made to the alleged permanent partial physical disability suffered by the appellant. 4. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The impugned award is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law; M.A.C.A No.1248/11 4 c) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15.12.2011. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity to adduce further evidence if any, within a period of 4 months from 15.12.2011; d) Inasmuch as there is no appeal preferred by the insurance company against the impugned award, we direct that the amount ordered under the impugned award can be released to the appellant by the Tribunal, with no obligation to return the same whatever be the final award. 5. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the appellant to produce the same before the Tribunal when the appellant appears before the Tribunal on 15.12.2011. 6. The Registry shall communicate this judgment immediately to the Tribunal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/