IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 2228 of 2008(C) OPMV.2598/2001 of IST ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:- -------------------------------------- K.T. SATHEESH, S/O UNNIKRISNAN NAIR, AGED 33 YEARS, AYIKKALATODI HOUSE, POST PERUMANNA, POOVATUPARAMBA, CALICUT -26. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. T.SAIDALAVI, S/O ALIKUTTY, PADINJARAYIL HOUSE, CHERUKULATHUR, KOZIKODE. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., WHITELINE BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J -------------------------. MACA No.2228 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV) No.2598/01. The claimant, a conductor by profession sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.16,584/- with 8% interest. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount. It is against that judgment, the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement. 2. Heard the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel had made available before me the documents relating to treatment. The claimant was admitted in the medical college hospital, Kozhikode. He had a fracture at the meta tarsal ie., he had sublaxation of PIP joint right 5th toe. It is also seen that he was referred to the Dental Department, wherein it was found that he had sustained a fracture of one tooth and mobility of another tooth and it is also seen that the reference was made after the date of accident on 22.3.2001. A perusal of the M.A.C.A.2228/08 2 records would reveal that he had undergone treatment for the same. The Tribunal felt that the documents relates prior to the date of accident and therefore compensation cannot be awarded, but the entries would reveal that on 22.3.2001 and thereafter alone he had been referred to the Dental Department with reference to the fracture of the tooth and mobility of the tooth and therefore, I propose to grant the following as additional compensation: Being a conductor by profession and having sustained injury in the form of fracture of metatarsal and fracture of one tooth and mobility of another tooth he is awarded Rs.2,500/- towards actual loss of earning Rs.2,500/- more towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in the life. Thus the claimant is entitled to a additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- 4. In the result, M.A.C.A. is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded Rs.5,000/- with interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. sou.