IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 526 of 2007 F ------------------------------------------ OPMV.2747/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OP(MV). -------------------------------------------------------- K.VELU, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT THALAPPAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O.MANHAPATTA, ILAMKOOR, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV): ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EBRAGI A.V., S/O.THARAVAGI, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT ATTUVAZHA HOUSE, MUYIPOTH POST, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., MUBARAK BUILDING, EDODI, VADAKARA. ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKYULLY FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 526 OF 2007 F --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd July, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tribunal has awarded Rs.10,900/=. Though originally the claim was for Rs.2 Lakhs, it was limited to Rs.50,000/=. It is as against the claim for Rs.50,000/= that the amount of Rs.10,900/=was granted. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the amount awarded towards loss of income for two months in a total sum of Rs.2,000/= is inadequate. He points out that the appellant was a driver and due to the fracture, he was disabled for three months. He further points out that towards pain and MACA.526/07 F 2 suffering, only Rs.5,000/= was granted and towards loss of amenities only Rs.1,000/= was granted. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company submits that the appellant was hospitalised only for one day. 4. Having heard heard the counsel appearing for the parties, we feel that the appellant is entitled to some enhancement. We feel that towards loss of earning, a sum of Rs.2,000/= more can be granted, having regard to the injuires suffered and the vocation of the appellant. We also feel that the appellant should be awarded a further sum of Rs.4,000/= more towards loss of amenities. We notice, of course, that the Court has found that the fracture of tibia was suspected, but it is not confirmed. According to the claim petition, the appellant was continuing treatment as O.P. from the Medical College Hospital. It is from the O.P. ticket that the tribunal has noted that the appellant was having pain on his elbow and thigh and foot dislocation left toe. We feel that Rs.3,000/= more can be awarded towards pain and suffering. Accordingly, the MACA.526/07 F 3 Appellant is entitled to a total sum of Rs.9,000/= more. The Appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is allowed to realise Rs.9,000/= more with 7.5 per cent interest from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The amount already awarded will also bear interest at 7.5 per cent 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