IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 MACA.No. 822 of 2005(B) ----------------------- OPMV.1160/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------- KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, KOMBI ACHAN HOUSE, CHEPPILAMURI, AKATHETHARA P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAGHAVAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------ 1. VARADARAJ, S/O.VEKISAMI, ALIYAR NAGAR, ALIYAR P.O., POLLACHI TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. 2. THIRUMALSWAMI, S/O.SUBBAYA GOUNDER, 10/2, MUSSUVANAPURI STREET, KOOTTOOR, MALANDIPATTANAM P.O., POLLACHI, TAMILNADU. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., UDUMALPETTA. 4. DHANALAKSHMY, W/O.LATE VARDARAJ, ALIYAR NAGAR, ALIYAR P.O., POLLACHI. 5. THIRUPPATHI, S/O.LATE VARADARAJ, ALIYAR NAGAR, ALIYAR P.O., POLLACHI. R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM R3 BY ADV. DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.822 of 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th January, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1160/1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, is the appellant. Appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 19.5.1996, while he was riding a TVS-50 motor cycle. According to the appellant, a lorry bearing Registration No.TDY-6197 driven by the first respondent in a rash or negligent manner came and hit against the motor cycle causing injuries on his person. He claimed a compensation of Rs.1,30,700/=. The owner and driver did not contest the matter. Insurer alone contested the matter. Existence of the policy was admitted. It was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant himself. Quantum of compensation claimed was disputed. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. It also found that the appellant was entitled to get a MACA.No.822 of 2005 2 compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.74,551/=. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner himself has filed the appeal. 2. The only point arising for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to any additional compensation. Injuries sustained by the appellant are narrated in paragraph 7 of the award. It shows that he sustained injuries and also suffered a fracture of the shaft of left femur. Appellant was unable to attend the work for seven months. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.22,351/= for loss of earnings, though he claimed an amount of Rs.24,500/=. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.33,000/= for treatment expenses, and produced documentary evidence. But the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.25,000/= . Appellant claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/= for pain and sufferings, but the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6000/=. Appellant has produced a disability certificate to the effect that he was having disability of 50%. Considering the age of the appellant, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.19,500/= for permanent disability. Taking into account all aspects of the matter, I MACA.No.822 of 2005 3 am of the view that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.11,000/= more for disability, and Rs.4000/= more for pain and sufferings. I do not find any reason to modify the amounts awarded on other counts. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. An award is passed allowing the appellant to recover an amount of Rs.15000/= as additional compensation from the third respondent, Insurance Company, with 6% interest from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. The third respondent is directed to deposit the above amount in favour of the appellant. On deposit, the appellant can withdraw the amount. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.