IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 893 of 2004() -------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2004 IN OPMV.45/1995 of ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD) .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- THOMAS. P.A., S/O. ANTHONI, RESIDING AT PARAKKAL VEEDU, VADAVARAD, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SMT.G.GEETHISHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. K.K. RAVI, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, RESIDING AT KARUMASSERY VEEDU, MULAYAM P.O., VELAKKAVU, THRISSUR. 2. KAJAHUSSAIN @ HUSSAIN, S/O. SHAHULHAMEED, RESIDING AT VALIYACHALLA GOVINDAPURAM, PALAKKAD. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPNAY LIMITED, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No.893 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimant filed this appeal. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that this is a case of amputation. The certificate shows that there is 60 percent disability. The amount awarded towards disability is inadequate, he contends. He submits that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that 60 percent disability can be taken and yet Rs.1,15,200/- is awarded. We feel that we can fix the disability at 50 percent. On the said basis the appellant would be entitled to Rs.1,44,000/- in place of Rs.1,15,200/- which means Rs.28,800/- more which is rounded off to Rs.29,000/-. There is amputation in the right hand. Learned counsel for the appellant is justified in MACA 893/2004 -2- contending that the compensation should have been awarded towards loss of amenities. We feel it is not unreasonable to award Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities. The appellant was in hospital for 19 days. We feel that the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation in so far as it awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. In the nature of the injury and the after effects which included amputation we feel that we should award a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. This means that the appellant would be entitled to Rs.49,000/- more. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is allowed to realise Rs.49,000/- more with interest at 7.5 percent from the date of the petition till realisation from the respondents. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS