IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1152 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.56/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------ ANISH V.T., S/O. THANKAPPAN, VAKAVAYALIL, KALAKETTY P.O., THIDANADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. M.D. JOSEPH, MOONNANAPALLIL HOUSE, THIDANADU P.O. 2. C.C. SEBASTIAN, CHERIYAMPURATH HOUSE, CHEMMALAMATTOM P.O. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3 SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R1 & R2 SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. FOR R1 & R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1152 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala, in OP(MV) 56/01. The claimant, a salesman by profession, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.17,000/-. Tribunal found that the policy was taken by suppressing the facts and therefore exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability and directed respondents 1 and 2 to pay the compensation. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant. 2. Heard both sides. So far as exoneration of the Insurance Company from the liability is concerned, it is submitted before me that there were connected cases before the Division Bench and the Division Bench in the judgment dated 8.6.07 in M.A.C.A. No.979/05 held that the finding of the Tribunal is not liable to be disturbed on that point. The claimant in that case was none other than the wife and mother of the deceased auto driver in which MACA No.1152/05 2 auto the present claimant was also travelling. Therefore the said point is concluded in the light of the Division Bench judgment. 3. The only point that survives for determination is regarding the quantum. It is seen from the award that the claimant has sustained a lacerated wound of 7x1.5 cm bone deep parietal area of head, lacerated wound on right upper eyelid and abrasions of other parts of the body. He was treated in the Medical College Hospital for 5 days and had suffered a sub conjunctival hemorrhage right side and minimal orbital injury. He had also undergone treatment for post traumatic headache. The Tribunal has only awarded him Rs.3,000/- for loss of earning. Considering the nature of the injury, the treatment undergone, the post traumatic headache, the pain that he had suffered on account of the orbital injury and the disability to do any work for two or three months, I enhance the compensation for loss of earning by Rs.2,000/-. Similarly, the pain and suffering also should have been both mentally and physically very much on account of the injury. Therefore, under that head I enhance the compensation by Rs.1,000/-. On all other heads the Tribunal has awarded proper compensation. Therefore, the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,000/-. MACA No.1152/05 3 Therefore, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,000/- with 7 % interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation from the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally and they are directed to deposit the amount within a period of two months from today. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1152/05 4 MACA No.1152/05 5