IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 1386 of 2007(D) ----------------------- OPMV.485/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- PARAMESWARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.SUBRAMANIAN, RESHMA NIVAS, S R K NAGAR, OTTAPALAM. BY ADVS. SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.SANKARA NARAYANAN, S/O.KUTTAN NAIR, KANJIRAMKATTU PARAMBIL VEEDU, PANAMANNA SOUTH POST, OTTAPALAM. (DRIVER OF THE AUTO KL 9D 5268) 2. M.RAJAN, KRISHNAPURI HOUSE, KANNIYAMPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM (OWNER OF THE AUTO NO.KL 9D 5268) 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, II FLOOR, J R J COMPLEX, OTTAPALAM (POLICY NO.761103/31/04/02807 VALID FROM 1-7-2004 TO 30-06-2005) BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1386 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam in O.P.(M.V) No. 485/2005. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he was awarded a compensation of Rs. 14,173/-. It is against that decision the claimant has come up for appeal for enhancement. A perusal of the award would reveal that the claimant had sustained lacerated wound on the frontal area and haematoma also therein. Besides this, he had abrasions on the shoulder forearm etc. On scan it was revealed that he had a frontal portion fracture with scalp thickening edema . The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that Ext. A11 certificate evidencing medical expenses for Rs. 20,000/- was produced, the Tribunal did not accept it. The Tribunal rejected it on the ground that the bills were not produced. When in a reputed hospital's treatment is effected, there will be valid bills and no reasonable explanation is worth M.A.C.A.No. 1386/2007 -2- coming to proof regarding the lose of the bills. Therefore I cannot find fault with the Tribunal for rejecting the same. But at the same time it has to be remembered that this man sustained a head injury and undergone scan and he was treated as inpatient for 3 days in a fairly well established hospital. Therefore taking into consideration that aspect, I award an amount of Rs. 3,000/- more towards medical expenses. It is true that the claimant has restricted his compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment in life for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each. He was also compensated for the head of continuing disability as well as for loss of earning capacity. It is a fairly established principle that the Tribunal is competent to grant award even more than what is claimed in the petition. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries and treatment undergone, especially the frontal portion fracture, certainly there would have been loss of amenities and enjoyment and being a Subadar in Indian Army it would have affected his career more. I therefore enhance the compensation for Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore the claimant is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. M.A.C.A.No. 1386/2007 -3- Therefore the M.A.C.A is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm