IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 108 of 2010() ---------------------- OPMV.991/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- SULEKHA, D/O.IBRAYI, AGED 38 YRS., RUMAITHIAGAR, PADINHARE KANHIRAMULLA PARAMB, VELLIKULANGARA, P.O.ORKATTERI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.RAKESH ROSHAN, SMT.THUSHARA.V. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. K.SADANANDAN, S/O.KRISHNAN (LATE), RAJ VIHAR, P.O.KOTTAPARAMB, CALICUT-673 008. 2. K.P.RANJITH KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, KIZHAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, ADIVARAM P.O., PUTHUPPADI. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MANUAL SONS BUILDING, CALICUT. R3 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A. No.108 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Vadakara in OP(MV)No.991/2006. The claimant, a lady aged 38 years, sustained injuries in a road accident and the tribunal has awarded her a compensation of Rs.4,000/=. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. The learned counsel had made available before me for perusal a copy of the wound certificate issued by Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode, which would show that the lady had sustained lacerated wound on the legs, lacerated wound on the nose and there had been fracture of the nasal bone. Radiological examination also confirmed the nasal bone fracture, i.e., on the tip. She was treated as an inpatient in a hospital for two days. The tribunal did not accept this but only stated that Ext.A2 does not reveal such things. I am afraid that : 2 : M.A.C.A. No.108 OF 2010 the tribunal has lost sight of the document when it is very clearly stated in two places regarding fracture of the nasal bone and place of the fracture mentioned in column 14 of the wound certificate. So with these materials, I proceed to redetermine the compensation as follows: 3. The claimant was treated in a private hospital for two days. I award Rs.1,000/= towards treatment expenses, Rs.200/= towards bystander's expenses and Rs.500/= towards extra nourishment charges. Even if she is a house wife, she would not have been in a position to do any work. Therefore I grant Rs.1,500/= under that head. Towards pain and sufferings considering the location of the fracture, I award Rs.7,000/= and for loss of amenities Rs.3,000/= by making a total compensation of Rs.13,200/=. Out of which, Rs.4,000/= has been awarded. Therefore the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.9,200/=. 4. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.9,200/= with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till realisation and the respondent insurance company is directed : 3 : M.A.C.A. No.108 OF 2010 to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A. No.108 OF 2010