IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1703 of 2004 -------------------------------------- OPMV.1623/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: DR. S. KISHORE, POORNIMA, ULOOR, SREEKARIYAM P.O., CHERUVIKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GOPIKRISHNAN, S/O. NANU,PULLUVILA VEEDU, PERATTE KOTTUKODA POOVANAN NILKUNNATHIL, NEAR TEMPLE, OTTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN,SC FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1703 of 2004 --------------------------------- JUDGMENT Koshy, J. The appellant/petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident. He claimed a total compensation of Rupees thirteen lakhs contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent, the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent. Even though it was found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent, the driver of the vehicle owned by the first respondent, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal was only Rs.1,70,450/-. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation. 2. The appellant is an Orthopaedic Specialist. At the time of the accident, he was a Lecturer in Orthopaedics at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. With regard to the accident, MACA 1703/04 2 Exhibit A6 disability certificate shows that he had fracture of left temporal bone. But, there was no neurological deficits. The CT Scan showed that there was no abnormalities. But, there was fracture of left temporal bone as can be seen from Exhibit A3. The Tribunal noticed that fracture of left temporal bone was not shown in Exhibit A9. The Neuro Surgeon certified 6% disability. His ribs were also fractured. The Cardiothoracic Surgeon certified disability at 18%. That was not accepted by the Tribunal, as fracture of ribs will not cause any lung problem and there was no evidence to show that his heart or lungs was affected. Utmost severe pain must have been there. The certificate showed that he was on leave only for 25 days from the date of accident. There was also fracture of the surgical neck of the right humerus with 10 angulation. The disability assessed was at 12%. The Tribunal, considering the disabilities and the fact that he re-joined duty after 25 days of the accident, was of the view that the medical MACA 1703/04 3 certificates were exaggerated. Perhaps, the appellant being a doctor, an exaggerated certificate must have been obtained. We see no ground to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also noticed that he was working as a Lecturer in the Medical College Hospital. As a result of the accident (except 25 days leave, which was granted) there was no other problem. He continued in service till his retirement, on attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of the accident, he was aged 31. The Tribunal, considering the fact that after his retirement his income will be reduced, Rs.10,000/- was fixed as the income and taking 8 as the multiplier, granted compensation. After the accident, the appellant re-joined duty after 25 days. We are of the view that there is no ground to enhance the compensation granted for loss of earning capacity. However, we note that his ribs were fractured. Apart from fracture of surgical neck of the right humerus, there were injuries on head also. Because of the fracture of ribs he must MACA 1703/04 4 have suffered severe pain during the period of his treatment. Considering the injuries, for pain and sufferings, the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.20,000/-, instead of Rs.12,000/-. We grant Rs.8,000/- more than that is awarded by the Tribunal under that head. The above Rs.8,000/- should be deposited by the first respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, with 7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On deposit of the above amount, the appellant is allowed to withdraw the same. The appeal is, thus, partly allowed. (J.B.Koshy, Judge) 12th August, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv