IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1983 of 2007(D) --------------------------------- OPMV.1433/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : ------------------------------- LAKSHMANAN, S/O. KANDA, RESIDING AT KALARIVALI HOUSE, C.M.C. WARD 16, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------------- 1. PRAKASAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, KOTTAPPALLY HOUSE, THYCATTUSSERY PANCHAYATH, WARD-3, CHERTHALA. 2. K.J. KURIAKOSE, KOIPARAMBIL, MANAPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1983 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, in OP(MV) 1433/00 and the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.56,400/-. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though a disability certificate of 16% was produced and the Doctor was examined, the Tribunal erred in fixing the disability at 10%. Learned counsel had placed before me the disability certificate as well as the deposition of the doctor for perusal. A perusal of the evidence of the Doctor would show that no question is put to him regarding the nature of the disability. What is asked was only regarding the correctness of the certificate and he has answered in that way. In order to properly understand and analyse the same, one should tender medical evidence which would show that what are the difficulties that will be exercised by the person in the light of the injury sustained in the accident. Unfortunately, these particulars are lacking. But still the Tribunal has taken 10% disability, which I find is reasonable and need not be disturbed. But the fact remains that the claimant was treated as inpatient in private hospital for a day and in the Government hospital for 16 days. He had also MACA No.1983/07 2 sustained a fracture of the L3 vertebra besides long lacerated injuries on the right knee and on the back. Certainly this would have caused him excruciating pain. The Tribunal has only awarded Rs.6,000/- for pain and suffering, which I enhance it to Rs.10,000. Similarly when a person sustained fracture of the vertebra that too at the age of 53, it will only increase the problem during old age which can cause lot of inconvenience. Therefore there will be loss of amenities and enjoyment in life for the claimant which I enhance the compensation by Rs.2,000/-. Therefore the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.6,000/-. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.6,000/- with 6 % interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation from the respondents. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1983/07 3