IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1603 of 2004(B) ------------------------------------ OPMV.243/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV) : ------------------------------------------------------ SIVAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE, ELAVOOR P.O., ALWAYE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 IN OP(MV) : --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOHU THACHIL, S/O.VAREED THACHIL, VATTAPARAMBU, ALWAYE. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MATTANCHERRY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1603 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in OP(MV) 243/97. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident by which he had suffered fracture of both bones of the right forearm. He was treated as inpatient for 5 days. A disability certificate was produced showing his disability as 10%. He was on leave for three months from 1.9.96 to 30.11.96. The Doctor who had issued the disability certificate had stated that the disability is 10%. But the documents produced by the very same claimant would show that he was perfectly fit to resume the work as computer operator. There will not be any loss of earning for him till he attains the age of superannuation. But in spite of the same, the Tribunal took 5% disability fixed his income at Rs.2,000/- applied a multiplier of 17 and calculated the compensation at Rs.20,400/-. Over and above it, the Tribunal also granted Rs.3,600/- for loss of amenities and Rs.6,000/- for pain and suffering. MACA No.1603/04 2 2. Learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal has erred in not granting the amount for actual leave. But it has to be mentioned that the Tribunal has given him compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of amenities together. He would not suffer any loss of income till he attains the age of superannuation. But the Tribunal has calculated it and given it. So it is a case where the claimant has been adequately compensated. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1603/04 3