IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 MACA.No. 1163 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.1525/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- P.T. MATHAI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSIA, PADIYANIKAL HOUSE, PULVETTA (P.O), KARUVARAKUNDU (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SULFIKAR, S/O. HAMZAKUTTY, CHEMBANKUZHIL HOUSE, KARINGANTHONI P.O., PULVETTA, VIA. KARUVARAKUKNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. C.K. ISMAIL, S/O. KAMZAKUTTY, CHEMBAN KUKZHIYIL HOUSE, KARINGANTHONI, PULVETTA P.O., KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BR. OFFICE, VARIKODAN BUILDING, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL R3 BY ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1163 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P.(MV)1525/00. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.21,750/-. The Tribunal found that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and therefore ordered the amount to be paid by the insurance company and get it recovered from the owner of the vehicle. So it is for enhancement the present appeal is preferred. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the parties had made available before me the documents relating to the treatment. The learned counsel for the owner would contend before me really this is not a fit case to be entertained at all and further he requests the Court not to enhance the compensation. I had perused the documents made available he was treated in the Assumption Hospital, Kanhirppuzha M.A.C.A. 1163 OF 2005 -:2:- from 7.1.2000 to 18.1.00 and the date of operation was on 10.1.00. It makes it very clear that the operation was done for the wound debridement and it was done under anesthesia. He was asked to come for review. Subsequently in the month of March he had gone to Al-Shifa Hospital where he was treated as an inpatient from 13.3.00 to 17.3.00 and there also a surgery was performed but in the case sheet the doctor has noted it as an old penetrating injury of two years back. If there had been a penetrating injury of two years back the hospital which admitted him first and the hospital where he had undergone a surgery would have also noted the same and therefore it is not proper for this Court to give reliance of that word to come to a different conclusion. It was only a continuity of a treatment that had taken place after the accident. The owner could have produced documents if he has undergone treatment in Al- Shifa Hospital about two years back. The nature of the injury also would indicate that it required a prolonged treatment, because it has affected the knee and there was M.A.C.A. 1163 OF 2005 -:3:- wound debridement. Therefore I feel that little enhancement is necessary in this case on the following heads. 3. He was working in a shop. Certainly he would have been prevented from doing any work for two months for which I grant Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings. The nature of injury, the place of injury and the treatment undergone evidences excruciating pain the claimant had undergone. I enhance that compensation by Rs.3,500/-. Certainly these types of injuries would have caused loss of amenities and enjoyment in life for which I award Rs.3,000/- and also award a further sum of Rs.500/- towards incidental expenses thus making an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 4. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days M.A.C.A. 1163 OF 2005 -:4:- from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that the insurance company can recover the original amount awarded plus the additional compensation from the owner on satisfaction of the award. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-