IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 1668 of 2009(F) ----------------------- OPMV.2064/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER -------------- ASSANAR @ HASSANAR, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, RESIDING AT THEKKUMMURI HOUSE, P.O.PAZHAMBALAKKODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. RATHEESH.M.L., S/O.LOHIDAKSHAN, RESIDING AT MURIYAMKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.EDAKKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. AJEESH KUMAR, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, RESIDING AT ARANATTUKARA HOUSE, P.O.NADAVARAMBU, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. He suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 06.12.2004. He was an inpatient for a period of 15 days. He had suffered permanent partial disability also. Injuries included serious fracture. The Tribunal on the basis of the materials available before it, came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.93,215/- as total compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum and proportionate cost. i) Loss of earning : Rs.10,000/- ii) Expense for transportation: Rs. 2,000/- iii) Expense for extra nourishment : Rs. 2,000/- iv) Damages to clothing : Rs. 500/- v) Expense for treatment : Rs.10,950/- vi) Expense for bystander : Rs. 1,600/- vii) Compensation for pain and suffering : Rs.15,000/- M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2009 2 viii) Compensation for loss of amenities : Rs. 8,000/- ix) Compensation for disability : Rs.43,200/- ................... Total : Rs.93,250/- ................... 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. The amount awarded does not represent just and reasonable compensation, argues counsel. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal had erred in reckoning only 10% as the reduction in earning capacity while computing the compensation even though 13% has been certified to be the extent of disability suffered by PW1 Doctor. 3. The court below had adverted to Ext.A11 disability certificate in detail. The court below chose to accept that only 10% is the extent of reduction in earning capacity and did not accept the percentage of disability certified in Ext.A11 which is proved by the oral evidence of PW1. We are unable to find any valid reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below in accepting 10% as the reduction in earning M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2009 3 capacity. Considering the nature of employment of the appellant as a salesman in a poultry farm, even assuming that the disability certified in Ext.A11/PW1 were held to be correct, the acceptance of 10% as the reduction in earning capacity consequent to such disability does not, at any rate, warrant interference. We are not persuaded to invoke our appellate jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned award on that score. No other contentions are raised. 4. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/- M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2009 4 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ C.M.Appl.No.1908 of 2009 in M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January 2009 ORDER BASANT, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 231 days. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We are proceeding to dispose of the M.A.C.Appeal straightaway and it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the respondents. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned. 2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-