IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 1610 of 2010 ------------------------------------- OPMV.180/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- ANTONY,S/O.JAMES FERNANDEZ,AGED 49, TC 27/1884(1),PULLANI VEEDU,SREECHITHIRA LANE, VANCHIYOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR SRI.S.ASWAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. V.PRATHAPAN, MARUTHAVILAKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU,POOKODE,BHAGAVATHI NADA PO,BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 501. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1610 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of September 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant sustained some injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on December 17, 2003. He claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, after considering the documentary evidence adduced by the appellant, awarded a sum of Rs.69,250/- recoverable with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the insurer of the vehicle. The above award is impugned in this appeal on the ground that it is too meager and inadequate. 2. It is primarily contended by the learned counsel that the Tribunal committed serious illegality in refusing to accept the percentage of disability of 20% as assessed by the District Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram. On the contrary, the Tribunal reckoned the disability as 10% and awarded a sum of Rs.36,000/- under the head of permanent disability. 3. It is revealed from the award and the wound certificate, a copy of which is made available before us, that the appellant had sustained fracture clavicle (L), fracture 2nd and 3rd metatarsal (L) foot apart from fracture medial malleolus of left ankle. It was noticed by the Tribunal that the appellant did not get himself examined before the Tribunal though the disability certificate was produced. There was absolutely no evidence to show that the injuries referred to above had in any way caused any permanent disability to the appellant so as to deprive him of the capacity to carry on his employment as a tailor. In other words, the M.A.C.A.No.1610 OF 2010 :: 2 :: appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that he had to abandon his avocation as tailor because of the injury or that it had affected his earning capacity in any manner. More importantly, the doctor who issued the certificate was also not examined. 4. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the Tribunal. It may also be noticed that the Tribunal had awarded the medical expenses claimed by the appellant. In addition to that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain and suffering also. Towards loss of earning, the appellant was awarded Rs.6,000/-. In short, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes