IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 550 of 2006(F) ------------------------------------- OPMV.238/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- KARTHIYANI W/O. NARAYANAN, PAYYAMATTATHIL, KUTHUPARA, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. JAISON S/O. CHANDI, NEERNATHOTTIYIL, VELLATHOOVAL KARA, VELLATHOOVAL. 2. M.K.IBRAHIM, MOLETHUPUTHENPURAYIL, KONNATHADY P.O., VELLATHOOVAL. 3. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SMT.T.PRESANNA KUMARI FOR R1 SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP FOR R2 DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 550 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)238/01. The claimant, a 60 year old lady sustained fracture on the 9th rib on the right side and she had been awarded a compensation of Rs.24,700/-. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that medical bills worth more than Rs.11,000/- was produced but the Tribunal did grant only Rs.3,700/- and therefore it requires interference among other heads. I had perused paragraphs 12 and 14 of the award. The insurance company disputed the genuineness of the bills. A series of bills commencing from 16282 to 16304 bearing different dates from 17.11.99 to 3.12.99 were produced. The Tribunal felt that it cannot be correct on account of the fact that unless there is only one patient there cannot be issuance of such M.A.C.A. 550 OF 2006 -:2:- bills. So it created suspicion in the mind. When a person from the hospital was summoned he pleaded ignorance and he state that somebodyelse has to be examined and he is unable to prove the same. These are all matters which require real evidence and in the absence of the same this Court is not in a position to interfere with the said finding. But it can be seen from the award that this lady was admitted as an inpatient initially from 17.11.99 to 7.12.99, again from 19.5.01 to 21.5.01 and also from 1.5.02 to 3.5.02, always complaining of pain on the right side of the chest. So it shows that the impact of the injury had been carried forwarded for years together and she had to visit hospital on many occasions. So I feel this is a fit case where little more leniency has to be granted with respect to the compensation for pain and sufferings as well as for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. I enhance the compensation for pain and sufferings by Rs.2,000/- and loss of amenities and enjoyment in life by Rs.3,000/-. On all other heads the Tribunal has awarded proper compensation. M.A.C.A. 550 OF 2006 -:3:- Therefore the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- with 6% 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/-