IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 71 of 2005() ------------------------------ OPMV.698/1998 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :- ------------------------------------------ K.A.XEVI, AGED 50 YEARS, SON OF ANTONY, KURISINKAL HOUSE, NARACKALPARAMBU, AROOR. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.NITHYA.K. SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :- ----------------------------------------------- 1. N.MAHESH BABUJI, M/S.M.M.EXPORTS, INDIA HANDICRAFT BUILDING, OPP. ERNAKULAM WHARF, KOCHI-682 003. 2. THULASIDAS, S/O.PERUMAL, BAJANAKOVIL STREET, CHANNAVARAM VILLAGE, VANNAVADI TALUK, SAMBUVARAYAR VILLAGE, TAMIL NADU. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAYE-1. ADV. SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.71 of 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January 2011 J U D G M E N T N.K.Balakrishnan, J. This appeal is preferred by the injured in a motor accident case who sustained injuries on 2.1.1998 at about 7 PM. In the accident he sustained fracture below left shoulder. The injury caused hearing loss also. The accident was not disputed. The fact that vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 was also not disputed. Considering the oral evidence tendered by the appellant and wound certificate, disability certificate etc., the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam awarded a total sum of Rs.87,500/-. 2. It is contended by the appellant that only a sum of Rs.7,500/- was awarded by the learned Tribunal under the M.A.C.A. No.71 of 2005 -: 2 :- head of loss of earning whereas the appellant has not recovered from injury even in October, 1998 that is; after more than 9 months from the date of incident and so the amount awarded is inadequate. It is further contended that appellant is suffering hearing loss of left ear and as such he is permanently prevented from doing the carpentry works as was done by him earlier. Thus, appellant contends that he is entitled to get a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the disability certificate and the discharge summary issued from the hospital to canvas for the position that compensation for loss of disability namely; for loss of hearing capacity also should have been granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the head of loss of earning power and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of amenities. Though, we are not inclined to accept the contention that the compensation awarded for loss of amenities and enjoyment M.A.C.A. No.71 of 2005 -: 3 :- is unreasonable and we find a sum of Rs.10,000/- more is to be awarded for loss of earning power and for loss of expectation of life. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads is found to be quite reasonable. Thus, the appeal is allowed only to the extent of awarding a further sum of Rs.10,000/- which will carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt