IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 777 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.1887/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- ERINHILLATH KRISHNAN ALIAS KUNHIKRISHNAN E., S/O.KRISHNAN MOOTHA PITARAN, EMPLOYED AS WESTERN INDIA PLYWOODS, VALAPATTANAM, RESIDING AT ERINHILLATH, NEAR KEYCEE PETROL PUMP, VALAPATTANAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O. VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. K.MANJOJ KUMAR, S/O. NARAYANI, PERINGOME AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, P.O. PERINGOME. 2. PARERAKATH ABDULLA, S/O. ABOOBAKCER, SREEKANDAPURAM, KOTTOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, P.O. SREEKANDAPURAM. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KANNUR. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 777 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1887 of 1997, filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The said petition was filed for compensation towards the injuries sustained by the petitioner in an accident, which the Tribunal has found, was caused by the negligent driving of the second respondent and awarded a total amount of Rs.53,750/- as compensation. 2. The complaint in the appeal is regarding inadequacy of the compensation. The appellant was granted a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards loss of amenities. Ext.A6 is the disability certificate, which shows that the appellant underwent hospitalisation at Mangalore for 11 days. Further, it is complained that Ext.A6 M.A.C.A.No. 777 of 2003 2 certificate would show that the appellant was advised that an implant is to be removed. The cost for the said surgery is Rs.10,000/- Of course, it is pointed out that no amount is granted towards disability. The appellant has no earnings for these months. But what was granted for loss of earnings was only for four months. Having considered the facts of the case, we would think that the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation. 3. In the interests of justice, we feel that the appellant shall be granted Rs.7,000/- more towards loss of amenities, Rs.3,000/- more at the rate of Rs.1,000/- towards loss of earnings for three months, Rs.5,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs.800 towards transportation charges and Rs.10,000/- as a lump sum towards disability, which he has sought going by Ext.A6 certificate. Thus the appellant shall be entitled for a further amount of Rs.25,800/- (rounded of to Rs.26,000/-) which would bear interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of payment. M.A.C.A.No. 777 of 2003 3 4. The appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is allowed to realise a further sum of Rs.26,000/- from the respondents with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm