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 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 862 of 2004 C ----------------------------------------- OPMV.973/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- KASIM, S/O. KUTTY MUSA, KADAKATTIL HOUSE, CHUNANGAD, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. M.R.ANU, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, MULLANKARA VEEDU, KADAMBUR, AMBALAPARA, OTTAPALAM. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, WESTERN WING, AMBADI BUILDING, C.V.JUNCTION, PONNANI. ADV. SRI.P.M. M. NAJEEB KHAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 862 OF 2004 C --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th June, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. Appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We heard Shri T.G. Rajendran, learned counsel for the appellant as also Shri P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, Insurance Company. The tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.44,100/=. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit before us that the tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.8,000/= towards pain and suffering, which is very low, having regard to the injuries and the treatment undergone. It is pointed out that the appellant was in the hospital for seven days and thereafter he was again hospitalised. He would submit further that there was a claim for Rs.35,000/= towards travelling and medical expenses and future medical treatment, but only Rs.22,900/= MACA.NO.862/04 C 2 was granted. He further points out that the amount awarded towards loss of amenities is low, as only Rs.5,000/= was granted. Still further, he points out that though the appellant claimed Rs.15,000/= towards loss of earning, only Rs.5,000/= was granted. He would point out that the appellant was working in Gulf and he came on leave and the accident took place. He took us through the injuries. The injuries include apart from abrasions and lacerated wound, fracture of the right fibula and acute lumbar in the intervertebral disc prolapse along with head injury. No doubt, the Doctor examined the appellant and found that the fracture is united. The Certificate was for permanent impairment of physical function by 4 per cent. We would think that having regard to the facts, the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation. Having regard to the nature of the injuries set out, the appellant should be granted a sum of Rs.7,000/= more towards pain and suffering. We also award Rs.3,000/= towards future medical treatment. We also feel that the appellant should be granted Rs.10,000/= as against MACA.NO.862/04 C 3 Rs.8,000/= granted by the tribunal towards disability. We also award Rs.5,000/= more towards loss of amenities. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to Rs.17,000/= more with interest at 7.5 per cent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.17,000/= with interest at 7.5 per cent from the second respondent Insurance Company from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge