IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 2052 of 2008(G) ----------------------------------- OPMV.470/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA ............................................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ DAVIS, S/O MATHEW, MADANI HOUSE, RESIDING KUTTIKKAD DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, KUTTIKKAD P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. ROSSA,W/O KURIAN, CHATHELY HOUSE, MELOOR P.O. 2. JAYSON, S/O ANTONY, THANDAPILLY HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD P.O. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHALAKUDY. ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.2052 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in OP(MV)No.470/2003. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.45,300= which includes Rs.18,350/= as medical expenses. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the claimant had sustained a type II open fracture of the lower end of the right humerus and that he is an auto driver by profession. It can also be seen that plate and screw have been implanted. The disability arrived at by the doctor is 9%. The Tribunal felt that since it is not issued by the medical board, it cannot be accepted. The said approach may not be absolutely correct for the reason that instances may arise where the parties may have to approach a doctor to get the disability certificate. What the Tribunal has to find out is whether the certificate issued can be accepted on the basis of the materials available therein. Here, before : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.2052 OF 2008 the issuance of the disability certificate, the doctor had conducted radiological and clinical examinations. The doctor had found that there is limitation of movement and weakness of the elbow joint. There is difficulty on the lateral side of the lower upper arm. The doctor had taken into consideration the avocation of the person and therefore had found the functional disability that may arise due to difficulty to lift weight, to carry weight, to pull, push etc. It can be seen that the fracture has been really grievous in nature which required implantation with the help of plate and screw. Being an auto driver by profession, certainly it will affect and cause handicap to him. 2. Therefore, I am inclined to fix the disability at 5%. When the income is worked out at Rs.24,000/= per annum, for 5% disability it would come to Rs.1200/= which when multiplied by an appropriate multiplier of 18 would be Rs.21,600/=. Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life another Rs.5,000/= is granted making a compensation of Rs.26,600/=. Out of this, an amount of Rs.9,000/= has already been awarded by the Tribunal. So, deducting the : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.2052 OF 2008 same, the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.17,600/=. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.17,600/= with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of the petition till realisation and 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 cl