IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 669 of 2010() ---------------------- OPMV.843/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- FRANCIS,S/O.KANIMANGALTHUKARAN LONAPPAN, CHITTISSERY DESOM,NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. SHIBU.C.R,S/O.CHERIYALATH RAPPAI @ RAPHAEL, CHITTISSERY DESOM, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ROUND EAST,THRISSUR. R2 BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.669 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda in O.P.(MV)No.843/2006. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.19,700/=. Dissatisfied with the same the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. The main grievance of the claimant is that though a disability certificate was produced and marked as Ext.A4, the Tribunal did not consider it. The learned counsel had made available before me for perusal a copy of the disability certificate. The disability certificate would show that the fracture is malunited with stiffness as well as limitation of movements. The Tribunal though did not consider the disability certificate has clearly stated that “it was noticed in open court that non-union of fracture is apparent”. : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.669 OF 2010 3. The claimant is a construction worker by profession and, therefore, certainly the malunited fracture of the clavicle can cause disability to him to a great extent. I fix his disability at 3%, income at Rs.2,500/= and applying the multiplier of 16 as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298) assess the disability compensation at Rs.14,400/=. When the income is taken at Rs.2,500/=, towards loss of earnings the claimant will be entitled to an additional sum of Rs.1,000/=. Thus the claimant is entitled to an additional sum of Rs.15,400/=. 4. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional sum of Rs.15,400/= with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.669 OF 2010 : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.669 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 8th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T