IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 2160 of 2009() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1186/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- CHANCHAL CHANDRAN,S/O.V.CHANDRAN, THIRIPPUNATH HOUSE, ENGADIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUMANGALAM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK C/O.PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, PONJANAM DESOM KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. K.G.NANDANAN, MANAGING PARTNER HOTAL DHANYA, VATANAPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT 2. G.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O.GOVINDAN KANAPADATH HOUSE, ENGADIYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, S.S.N SHOPPING COMPLEX, TEMPLE ROAD, NATTIKA, THRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R3 BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2160 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda in OP(MV)No.1186/2004. The claimant an 18 year old man sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.24,700/=. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. A perusal of para-6 would reveal that the young man had sustained haematoma over left frontal area and abrasions over almost all parts of the body and radiological examination revealed fracture of the 3rd meta tarsal bone. He was inpatient in a hospital for 7 days and Rs.6,500/= had been spent for treatment. A disability certificate is produced and it only deals with suffering of arthritis and synosis on the left ankle joint. As correctly observed by the Tribunal there is nothing to show that these are all on account on the injury sustained in the accident for : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2160 OF 2009 the reason that the major injury is only on account of fracture of the 3rd meta tarsal bone. Therefore it cannot be taken as a proved disability. But it can be seen that the young man had sustained very bad injury on his knee besides fracture of the bone. C.T.Scan was also taken and practical difficulty is experienced by the young man. 3. Therefore I am inclined to enhance the temporary difficulty and loss of amenities compensation by Rs.3,000/=. I award a sum of Rs.1,000/= towards extra nourishment and damage to clothing and another Rs.1,000 for hospitalisation and future expenses thereby enhancing the compensation by Rs.5,000/= 4. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.5,000/= with 7% interest from the date of the 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.2160 OF 2009 : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.2160 OF 2009