IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 375 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.2834/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------ RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, NAMBIKULATHIL HOUSE, KUZHUPPALLY ROAD, PONNURUNTHY P.O., KOCHI -1 9. BY ADV. SRI.K.JANARDHANAN SRI.MANURAJ. K.J RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------- 1. C.M.VARKEY, S/O.MATHEW, CHAKKAMPUZHANGATTU HOUSE, PERUMPALAM, CHERTHALA. * 2. P.K.UDAYAN, S/O.KUNJANVAVA, PUNNAPPUZHATHAZHATH VEETTIL, NEAR ST.JOHN'S YAKOBAYA CHURCH, KANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, S.PARUR, CHERTHALA. (THE NAME OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 2.11.2009 IN I.A.NO.3148 OF 2009) 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.375 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident. He claimed compensation of an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- under various heads against which an amount of Rs.36,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. Claiming enhancement of the compensation, this appeal has been preferred. 2. The accident occurred on 12.2.2000, when the appellant was riding a scooter in the Vytilla-Edappally Bye pass road. At the point, Chakkaraparambu, the bus which was coming from the rear side hit on the scooter, as a result, the appellant fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to the nearby hospital for treatment. The MACA No.375 of 2008 2 Tribunal found that the accident occurred as a result of the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, and proceeded to quantify the amount of compensation to be awarded. 3. In the absence of any appeal from the other side, the only point that arise for consideration is as to whether the appellant is entitled for any enhancement. If so, to what extent and under what head ? 4. The appellant sustained 4 cms long shallow laceration on Left Cheek; 10 x 5 cms. Laceration on left thigh; contusions on left shoulder and left wrist and fracture of left radius and left scapula (glanoid). Ext.A6 is the discharge certificate and Ext.A7 is the treatment certificate. According to him, he suffered persistent pain and he was admitted in the General Hospital, Ernakulam. He was an inpatient for two days in the Krishna Hospital for removal of MACA No.375 of 2008 3 implants from Left radius. According to him, he was a self employee earning a monthly income of Rs.2000/-. In the absence of any serious dispute, income was fixed as Rs.2000/-. Though he produced a medical certificate to prove his disability at 8%, he was subjected to examination by a Board attached to the General Hospital. The Board found weakness of extension, pain during movement of wrist, 10 degree short supination and writ extension of 10 degree. X-ray showed united fracture shaft of radius with mild rotation. But the Tribunal did not accept the disability certificate, Ext.A11. The Tribunal held that there was nothing to show that physical impairment has in any way resulted in functional disability, and hence, considering the social disability likely to be suffered during the remaining time, compensation was quantified. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have MACA No.375 of 2008 4 accepted Ext.A11 medical certificate and compensation ought to have been awarded for permanent disability at 8%, taking his income as Rs.2000/-. It is true that in the normal course, the medical certificate issued by the medical board, in the absence of any contra evidence, may be acceptable. But when the medical certificate has been considered by the Tribunal, it was found that X-ray showed united fracture shaft of radius with mild rotation and there was nothing to show that he has suffered any disability of a permanent nature as certified in Ext.A11. Nobody was examined to prove Ext.A11 medical certificate. However, considering the nature of the injuries suffered and in view of the clear finding that some functional disability would have occurred to him which is likely to be suffered during his remaining life span, it is only appropriate that a fixed amount has to be paid by way of compensation under this head. Accordingly, we award a sum of Rs.5000/- under the head ‘disability’. MACA No.375 of 2008 5 6. Further, under the head ‘pain and sufferings’, the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.8000/-. We increase the same to Rs.10,000/-, and thus, the appellant will be entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.2000/- under this head. For ‘loss of discomforts, inconvenience and diminution of pleasures in life’ the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.8000/-. We increase it to an amount of Rs.10,000/-, and thus, he will be entitled to get Rs.2000/- under this head. For ‘loss of earning’, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2000/-, and we increase it to Rs.6000/-, and thus, he will be entitled to get additional amount of Rs.4000/- under this head. 7. In the result, the appellant is entitled to get a further compensation of Rs.13,000/- which will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation. This additional amount of compensation shall be deposited by the Insurance MACA No.375 of 2008 6 Company, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeal is allowed in part. No cost. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.