IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 437 of 2010(B) ---------------------- OPMV.1472/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OPMV ----------------------------------------- VARGHESE,S/O.ANTHONY, CHITTINAPPILLY HOUSE,OMPATHUNGAL DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE & P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OPMV ------------------------------------------------- 1. LALITHA,W/O.VENUGOPALAN, PALLATHERY HOUSE, MATTATHURKUNNU P.O., THRISSUR. 2. SREEJITH, S/O.RAVEENDRANATHAN, CHERUKATTU HOUSE, KOPLIPADAM DESOM, VELLIKULANGARA P.O., 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLANNUR, BEVASSY SMARK BUILDING, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.M.C.GOPI FOR R1&2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 437 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)1472/06. The claimant, a 45 year old business man, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.33,650/-. Dissatisfied with the same the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents 1 and 2. A perusal of the award would show that the claimant had sustained a fracture on the fourth rib as well as a fracture on the fibula. The doctor certified his permanent disability at 8%. The Tribunal has also noted that there was bulging on the fracture site and therefore it M.A.C.A. 437 OF 2010 -:2:- had given Rs.5,000/- towards that bulging part. A perusal of the disability certificate made available for perusal would show that there was tenderness on the fracture site and further there was difficulty for movement. So taking into consideration those aspects I am inclined to grant 2% more disability in this case. When the income is taken at Rs.2,500/-, disability at 2% with a multiplier of 14 as envisaged under Sarala Varma's case 2009 ACJ 1298(Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation) the disability compensation would come to Rs.6,400/- over and above this Rs.2,000/- more can easily be given towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life thereby entitling him an additional compensation of Rs.8,400/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional M.A.C.A. 437 OF 2010 -:3:- compensation of Rs.8,400/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-