IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1852 of 2009() -------------------------------- OPMV.26/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): --------------------- JILI.T.V., AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.VELAYUDHAN, THOOVAKUNNIL HOUSE, MEENANGADI P.O., S.BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.J.ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. ANVAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAPPA, MANAKKATTIL HOUSE, KANNAMCHATH, CHUNDALE POST, VYTHIRI TALUK. (DRIVER OF AUTORICKSHAW NO.KL-12/7660, D.L.NO.NOT KNOWN). 2. C.J.DEVASSIA, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, CHERIAKANDATHIL HOUSE, POST THARIODE, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (OWNER OF AUTORICKSHAW NO.KL-12/7660) 3. NATINAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KALPETTA. (INSURER OF THE AUTORICKSHAW NO.KL-12/7660, POLICY NO.57030/31/03/6703064). ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN,J. ................................ M.A.C.A No1852 of 2009 .......................................... Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against an award of the Claims Tribunal Kalpetta in O.P.No.26/2005. Claimant, 18 year old girl sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded her a compensation of Rs. 17,000/-. Dissatisfied with the amount, the claimant has come up in appeal. It is also seen from the award that the driver of the autorickshaw did not have a valid licence. R1 and R4 were jointly made liable to pay the amount. The Insurance company has been exonerated from the liability. On going through the memorandum of appeal, the challenge is only regarding the quantum and therefore I am considering that question alone in the appeal. The girl had sustained a fracture on the ulna and she was admitted in the hospital on 17.11.2004 incurring a medical expenditure of Rs.10,300/-. The compensation awarded under the other heads are grossly inadequate and no amount is seen granted for the removal of the implantation. Considering the fact that she had a mal-united fracture, the treatment was prolonged. Therefore I am inclined to enhance the compensation under the following heads. M.A.C.A No1852 of 2009 2 2.Towards pain and suffering an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded, further. Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life another sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted and for the purpose of the removal of implantation, a further sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted thereby enhancing the compensation by Rs.15,000/-. In the result, MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- and respondents 1 and 4 are made jointly and severally liable to pay the same with 6% interest from the date of petition till realisation and they are directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN JUDGE mns