IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 121 of 2008 ---------------------- OP(MV).2219/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------- ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.E.FATHIMAKUTTY, PAYAKKAT (IDIYATTAYIL) HOUSE, P.O.VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN CODE - 679 562. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. MARIYU.T., W/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, ALAGATYTTU HOUSE, VELIYAMCODE, P.O.PAZHANJI. 2. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, DO. DO. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, C.V.JUNCTION, AMBADI BUILDING, PONNANI. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ................................................................................ M.A.C.A.No. 121 OF 2008 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th November, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Raman, J: The appeal is filed by the injured in a motor accident occurred on 18.02.2001. When he was standing near the bus stop, a maruti Omni van bearing Registration No.KL.10/H 9522 came in a rash and negligent manner and knocked him down causing serious injuries to the claimant. It was alleged that only because of negligence on the part of the car driver that the accident occurred. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred only as a result of the negligence on the part of the car driver, second respondent. Insurance coverage is admitted. Therefore, the only point arise for consideration is regarding the adequacy of compensation awarded. 2. According to the appellant/claimant he had suffered very serious injuries, as revealed by the medical records. The doctor assessed his disability at 20%. The doctor was also examined in the case. But still, the Tribunal reduced the percentage of M.A.C.A.No. 121 OF 2008 2 disability to 12%. The appellant submits that he is continuing his treatment even after the award was passed. He has produced the medical bills in support of his claim for an amount of Rs.17,468.50/- along with I.A.No. 139 of 2008. 3. After hearing both the sides we allow I.A.No.139 of 2008 seeking to receive the medical bills produced along with the said I.A. as additional evidence. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that considering the fact that split up figures were not given in the certificate issued by the doctor, the Tribunal was justified in taking 12% as the permanent disability for the whole body. 5. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads. As regards compensation awarded towards ' permanent disability', the Tribunal reduced the percentage of disability from '20' (as assessed by the doctor) to '12' and has given some reason for doing so. In a case where several injuries are sustained, while assessing the disability resulted from the injuries, the totality of the injuries affecting the whole body has to be taken. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in not accepting the percentage of disability as certified by the doctor. The M.A.C.A.No. 121 OF 2008 3 deposition of P.W.1, doctor shows that the fractured left leg of the petitioner was subjected to open reduction and internal fixation and that he was having oesteo arthritis on left knee, painful limitation of left knee flexion, surgical scar over left knee and posterior aspect of left knee with giving away sensation. Taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor as P.W.1 and considering the nature of the injuries suffered, however, we think, it will be proper to take the percentage of disability for the whole body at '15' instead of 12. On re-calculation of the amount of compensation towards 'permanent disability', the petitioner will be entitled for a sum of Rs.61,200/-, against which an amount of Rs.48,960/- has already been awarded. Hence, the balance amount of Rs.12,240/- (Rupees twelve thousand two hundred and forty only) rounded to Rs.12,200/- (Rupees twelve thousand and two hundred only) is awarded by way of additional compensation towards 'permanent disability'. 6. We have gone though the bills produced along with I.A.No. 139 of 2009. We find that the expense incurred, as supported by the bills, is liable to be disbursed to the appellant. Accordingly we award a further sum of Rs. 17,468.50/-, which is M.A.C.A.No. 121 OF 2008 4 rounded to Rs.17,400/- (Rupees seventeen thousand and four hundred only) towards 'medical expense'. Considering the fact that the injured has to undergone further treatment, we award a further sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards 'loss of amenities', over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. Thus the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.31,600/- (Rupees thirty one thousand and six hundred only), which will carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of the petition till realisation. The amount shall be deposited by the Insurance company as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Appeal is allowed as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk