IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 331 of 2010() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1294/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OP (MV) --------------------------------------------------------- JOHNY S/O.PAREKKARAN JOSEPH, KORATTY DESOM AND P.O. MURINGOOR THEKKUMMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1TO 3 IN OP (MV) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HANEEFA, S/O.KADAVATH SYEDALI AHAMMED, KOTTAYI P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SAVED, S/O.KUTTIASANTE PURAKKAL KHALID, EDAKKADAPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. UNITY BUILDING, ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, P.B.NO.27011,BANGALORE P.O. R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.331 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)No.1294/2006. The claimant, a 48 year old businessman by profession, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.29,500/=. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. A perusal of the award especially para-7 would reveal that the claimant was admitted in St. James Hospital, Chalakudy with lacerated wound over the eyebrow, abrasion over the upper lip and an undisplaced fracture of the distal end of right radius. He had also undergone physiotherapy treatment. He had produced the disability certificate of 12% which has been totally ignored by the Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant had made available before me a copy of the disability certificate. It : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.331 OF 2010 would reveal that there is some limitation of movements, weakness of the grip, limitation of dosiblexion and there will be difficulty for him to grip strongly and he cannot lift heavy materials with that hand. 4. Therefore I feel though not at 12%, a minimum disability of 3% can be taken to work out the compensation. Considering the fact that he is a 48 year old man having business, I fix his income at Rs.3,000/= and at the rate of 3% disability with the multiplier of 13 as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298), the disability compensation would come to Rs.14,040/=. Since permanent disability compensation is given, I reduce loss of amenities compensation to Rs.3,000/= making it Rs.17,040/= of this Rs.5,000/= is already granted. Therefore the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.12,040/=. 5. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.12,040/= with 7% interest from the date of petition till realisation and the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from th : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.331 OF 2010 date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.331 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 8th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T