IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 69 of 2010() ------------------ OPMV.928/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT / PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- KAVITHADEVI PILLAI, W/O.PRADEEP KUMAR, PALLATH GOKULAM, NADATHARA, TRICHUR-680301. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SAKKARIA, S/O.MOIDUNNI, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, PERUMBADAPPU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. PRAVEEN, S/O.PRAKASAN, THONDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANNAMBATHOOR, THORAVOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. 4. JAYAN, S/O.BALAN, VALATH HOUSE, KANNAMBATHOOR, THORAVU, THRISSUR. R2 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 69 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV) 928/02. The claimant, a nurse, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.23,100/-. Since the 2nd respondent did not have a valid driving licence the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the amount and recover it from the 4th respondent the owner of the vehicle. It is against the quantum that is awarded, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for respondents 2 and 4. A perusal of the award would reveal that the claimant had M.A.C.A. 69 OF 2010 -:2:- sustained fracture on the 3rd and 4th metatarsals with a punctured wound on the right foot and also lacerations on the 2nd and 5th toes. She was an inpatient in the hospital for eight days and she had expended an amount of Rs.5,756/- towards cost of medicines. A disability certificate also is produced assessing the disability at 10% due to malunion of metatarsal and alleged stiffness of MTP joint. The Tribunal did not accept the disability certificate for the reason that the Doctor was not examined nor the claimant. The Tribunal refused to grant any amount towards loss of earnings. Even if she is considered as a housewife and considering the present wage structure and set up an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month has to be awarded and for two months I award an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings. Considering the injury that is sustained on the foot of the person including two M.A.C.A. 69 OF 2010 -:3:- fractures and a punctured wound it would have taken a long time for healing and therefore I enhance the pain and sufferings compensation by Rs.2,000/-. The Doctor, though not examined has certified about the malunion of the bones. When there is a malunion certainly there will be difficulties and at least it would have caused temporary disability and loss of amenities for a person aged 37 years. Therefore I grant Rs.3,000/- more towards loss of amenities and enjoyment, thereby entitling the claimant to have an additional compensation of Rs.11,000/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.11,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the M.A.C.A. 69 OF 2010 -:4:- judgment. On deposit of the amount the insurance company will be entitled to recover that amount also from the 4th respondent, the owner of the vehicle. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-