IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1245 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.2183/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- SUNNY MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, VATTAMUKALEL HOUSE, PATTITHANAM P.O. KANAKARI. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. K.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, KALAMBUKATTIL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O. 2. K.J.TOMY, S/O.JOSEPH, KALAMBUKATTIL HOUSE, ELAPPARA P.O. IDUKKI. 3. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 1245 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section 166 if the M.V. Act. He stands awarded a sum of Rs.74,164/- as against his claim for Rs. 7 lakhs. He is challenging the quantum of amount awarded. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that having regard to the nature of the injuries and the treatment undergone, the appellant was awarded Rs.9,500/- towards pain and sufferings. No doubt, he pointed out that he was awarded under the head injury, an amount of Rs.9500/- He complains that though he produced certificate from the Medical Board showing M.A.C.A.No. 1245 of 2005 2 his disability as 30%, only a lump sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded. No multiplier is adopted, it is pointed out. He further points out that no amount is awarded towards bystander's expenses. Likewise, towards loss of amenities, Rs.7,500/- was granted. Lastly, towards loss of earning, eventhough he submitted that actually the loss of earning should have been granted for two years, he has been awarded only for four months. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, submitted that the award is to be supported. Our attention was drawn to the discussion by the Tribunal for awarding Rs.20,000/- for disability and submitted that the manner in which the Tribunal had awarded the amount has to be supported. 5. After having heard both sides, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to further compensation. Admittedly, this is a case where the petitioner was hospitalised for 38 days. There appears to have been prolonged treatment. The description of the treatment has been noted in Ext.A6 disability certificate. He has also produced M.A.C.A.No. 1245 of 2005 3 Ext.A19 letter from the Department of Neurosurgery, Lourd Hospital, certifying that his left radial nerve is affected by the injury. 6. Having regard to the period of hospitalisation, we feel that it will be just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards bystander's expenses. In the nature of the injuries suffered, we feel that the appellant can be awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities. No doubt, the Tribunal has not accepted the certificate for the reasons which are mentioned in paragraph 28, which reads as follows: “The doctor has certified 30% disability to petitioner under Mc-Bride Scale. There is partial ankylosis of elbow with restriction of movements and wrist movements. There occurred excision of radial head also. Eventhough the certificate of disability is supported by medical reasons, the doctor is not examined to specify the extent of disability caused to the whole body. So taking the disability certificate under Ext.A16 as the left upper limb disability and thereby taking a lesser percentage of whole body disability, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is allowed as compensation under the disability factom.” M.A.C.A.No. 1245 of 2005 4 7. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, we would think that the interests of justice would be sub- served if we award a further sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head disability. Accordingly, the appellant will be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- more as enhanced compensation. 8. This appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to realise an amount of Rs.15,000/- more with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the third respondent from the date of the petition till realisation. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm