IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 568 of 1996(D) -------------------------------- OPMV.296/1993 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT (PETITIONER) -------------------------------------- K.SURESH, S/O.KUNJAPPAN, KOTTAKKAL PUTHENPURA, RANDARKARA, MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP SRI.N.J.ROSHER SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENTS(RESPONDENTS) ---------------------------------------------- 1. MATHAIKUNJU, S/O.ESTHAPPAN, PALAKKARAN, KIZHAKKEKARA, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 2. MOHANAN, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, KALAPPURACKAL, KIZHAKKEKARA, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.568 OF 1996 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J: The appellant/claimant sustained injuries in an accident on 28.1.1990. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent, driver of the vehicle which was insured by the 3rd respondent insurance company and the compensation awarded was directed to be deposited by the 3rd respondent. Against a claim of Rs.2,20,000/=,only Rs.32,879/= was awarded. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. It is the contention of the appellant that he was getting Rs.2,500/= as monthly income. He was a Mason and he produced Ext.A8 salary certificate to that effect. The Tribunal did not accept the same. It was not proved. Since the accident occurred in the year 1990, the Tribunal assessed monthly income in the absence of material evidence as Rs.1,500/=. We see no ground to enhance the same. The next contention is that the doctor, who treated him assessed the disability at 20%. There was compound fracture on the knee. The wound certificate shows the MFA.NO.568/96 . 2 following injuries: “1. Lacerated wound-front of (L) knee exposing he knee joint. 2. Lacerated wound 10x4x2 cm medical aspect of forearm (L). 3. Lacerated deep wound - dorsal aspect of (L) foot. 4. Multiple abrasions.” Ext.A4 discharge certificate shows that even skin grafting had to be resorted to heal, one of the injury. The Tribunal found that even though fracture as such has not been properly proved, the injury on the knee portion was serious, which had to get attention from the hospital authorities for several days. The disability assessed by the doctor was not accepted because doctor was not examined at that time. According to the appellant, even though Rs.1,500/= was fixed as his monthly income, for 20% disability, he would get a compensation of Rs.64,800/- but only Rs.15,000/= was awarded for disability and loss of earning power. Considering fracture on the knee which needed long term treatment, we are of the opinion that Rs.5,000/= more should be awarded for disability, loss of earning capacity, discomforts and other after effects of the injury. The 3rd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit Rs.5,000/= more with 7.5% interest from the date of application till MFA.NO.568/96 . 3 the date of deposit. On deposit of the amount, the appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl MFA.NO.568/96 . 4 J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. M.F.A.NO.568 OF 1996 JUDGMENT 27th day of June, 2008.