IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1705 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.227/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- SYAMPRASAD, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE C.K. KUNHIKANNAN, `AISWARYA', CHALAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.J.ANTONY RESPONDENTS: (RESPONDENTS): ----------------------------------------------------- 1. E.K. VIJAYAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, ILLAMADATHIL HOUSE, SEETHAMOUNT, PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. BRIJESH. K. THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, KATTAMKOOTTIL HOUSE, SASIMALA, PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., (LOCAL BRANCH OF THE INSURER, SUNITHA BUILDINGS, R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE). BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1705 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, in OP(MV) 227/97. The appellant, a bank manager by profession, aged 48 years had sustained fracture of the 5th meta tarcel of right foot, lacerated wound on the face, upper right hand and knee. He was treated in Sanjiwini Hospital from 28.1.97 to 31.1.97. He was awarded a compensation of Rs.17,950/-. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has not awarded a proper compensation. It can be seen from the materials available that though no document was produced, the Tribunal presumed that he would have taken 15 days leave and granted Rs.6,300/- towards loss of salary. Though no supporting medical bills were produced, the Tribunal had granted compensation under those heads as well. The Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- for loss of earning and enjoyment in life. Learned counsel had made available before MACA No.1705/05 2 me a disability certificate issued by the Doctor. A perusal of that certificate would show that there is no scientific basis in assessing the disability. The Doctor has just stated that he had sustained injury and fracture in a road accident and therefore had assessed his disability at 5%. This cannot be accepted by a court of law. 3. On an analysis, I find the Tribunal has taken into consideration the materials placed before it and had granted a reasonable compensation which is just under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1705/05 3