IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 308 of 2007(A) ----------------------------------- OPMV.553/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : -------------------------------------- THUPPARAMBIL BABY JOSE, S/O.JOSE, AYYANKUNNU VILLAGE, ENTHUMKARY, P.O.ANGADIKADAVU. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3 : -------------------------------------------------- THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. P.O.KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008 ALONG WITH MACA NO.363 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. Nos. 308 & 363 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, in OP(MV) 553/01. MACA No.308/07 is preferred by the appellant for enhancement of compensation and MACA No.363/07 is preferred by the Insurance Company for reduction. Since the point raised in these two appeals are the question of compensation and quantum, they can be disposed of together. 2. The claimant had sustained a crush injury on the outer and dorsal aspect of the left ankle. He had undergone bone grafting. It is also certified that he is having tenderness over the area. The Medical Board assessed his disability at 2%. The claimant was admitted in a private hospital namely Dhanalakshmi Hospital. He had also undergone inpatient treatment for about 11 days in P.T.Chacko Memorial Hospital. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant would contend that he had produced medical bills for more than Rs.12,000/-. But the Tribunal without assigning any reason had reduced it to Rs.6,500/-. MACA Nos. 308 & 363/07 2 It is also submitted that the Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation for the actual loss of earning as well as for transportation and other expenses. I feel the matter requires reconsideration. 4. A man aged 34 years, who has been working as a rubber tapper as well as an employee, would have some income to maintain his family and the notional income taken appears to be inadequate. Therefore, I fix his income at Rs.2,000/- for the purpose of fixing the compensation. It appears that he was working as an employee in a Milk Co-operative Society as well. If the income is fixed at Rs.2,000/- and disability compensation is calculated the difference will come to Rs.4,760/- (i.e. 24,000x2/100x17-3,400/-). Similarly when such a big crush injury is sustained he would not have been in a position to do any work for some time. Therefore, for actual loss of earning an amount of Rs.2,000/- has to be further granted. I have perused the medical bills. There is some force in the contention of the learned counsel that the Tribunal has disallowed the same without any reason. I award Rs.3,500/- more under that head. The additional compensation therefore would come to Rs.10,260/-. MACA Nos. 308 & 363/07 3 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company had brought to my notice that Rs.15,000/- had been granted for pain and suffering, which according to them is on the higher side. I feel the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant is so intricate and certainly it would have caused agonizing pain for the reason that it is an injury of a crush nature which had affected the ankle and even for the slightest movements there would have been pain. When the disability certificate was issued in 2005 the Doctors were able to locate that movements were painful even at that time. Therefore, I do not find it to be on the higher side. So I feel the appeals can be disposed of as follows. MACA No.308/07 is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.10,260/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from today and MACA No.363/07 filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA Nos. 308 & 363/07 4