IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 412 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.1379/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- CHANDRAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN VYDIAR, AGED 32 YEARS, KUNYIL HOUSE, AVITANALLOOR AMSOM & DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, AGED 39 YEARS, ANAPARACKAL HOUSE, UNNIKKULAM AMSOM, KANTHAPURAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. ABDUL RASAK, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, AGED 37 YEARS, UNNIKKULAM AMSOM, KANTHAPURAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, PANNIKKATTU KANDI HOUSE, (DRIVER OF KL-11 D/2180/MINI BUS) DL.NO.678/84 BADGE: 1380/86 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KANNUR BRANCH, KANNUR, INSURER OF KL-11,D/2180, MINI BUS POLICY-571/00/31/95/41/63/0/047 CERTIFICATE NO.571100/1677/95 4. K.P.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KANNAN, PRAKASH TRANSPORT, KANNUR (OWNER OF KRC 9199 BUS) (DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DT.15.6.09 IN I.A. 1447/09) 5. GIRIVASAN, S/O.NANU, AGED 28 YEARS, MOORKKAN VEETTIL HOUSE, THALIPARAMBA AMSOM & DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. (DRIVER OF THE KRC 9199 BUS). 6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THALASSERY BRANCH, THALASSERY P.O. (INSURER OF KRC 9199 - BUS) POLICY NO.100802/31/40/3943) CERTIFICATE NO.139669. ADV. SRI. LAL GEORGE FOR R.3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 412 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(M.V) No. 1379 of 1996, which is a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant stands awarded a total sum of Rs.21,300/- 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant raises two issues before us. According to the learned counsel, the appellant lost six teeth. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the appellant lost two teeth and awarded Rs.8,000/- as total compensation by calculating Rs.4,000/- for one teeth. The second contention is that no amount is awarded M.A.C.A.No. 412 of 2003 2 towards disfiguration. He referred to Exts.A3 and A5. Ext.A3 is the case record and Ext.A5 is the treatment certificate. The Tribunal has discussed the injuries suffered by the appellant. He sustained a laceration on the lower lip and has lost lower central incisors and left lower canine teeth. Ext.A2 accident register shows loosening of the teeth as well as bleeding from the gums. The mouth cavity of the appellant was affected considerably due to the accident. The appellant has lost lower central incisors and left lower canine teeth. 4. According to the appellant, actually he has lost six teeth in all. In this connection we note the entries in Exts.A3 and A5. In Ext.A5 it is stated that the appellant has lost lower central incisors and left lower canine. In the case records it is stated as missing of 21, 123 lower. It is also stated that one tooth as mobile (4). He further contends that the mobile tooth was subsequently extracted. Therefore, there M.A.C.A.No. 412 of 2003 3 is evidence to show that six teeth were lost as a result of the injuries. But compensation is awarded only for two teeth. 5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the amount awarded is correct. Going by the entries in Ext.A3 we can safely conclude that the appellant has lost four teeth. There is no oral evidence and there is no clear certificate to show the exact number of teeth which have lost. 6. According to the appellant, he is entitled for Rs.8,000/- more, at the rate of Rs.4,000/- for one tooth. We would think that the appellant has to be compensated under the head disfiguration. From the treatment certificate we also find that the appellant is undergoing regular follow up. In view of the nature of the injuries, we feel that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards disfiguration. In such circumstances we award Rs.10,000/- towards disfiguration also. M.A.C.A.No. 412 of 2003 4 7. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to realise a sum of Rs.18,000/- more from respondents 3 and 6 with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm