IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 431 of 2009(B) ---------------------- OPMV.1339/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ VIJAYADEVI, GEETHALAYAM HOUSE, PALLOM P.O., NATTAKAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------- 1. GEETHAKRISHNAN, GEETHALAYAM, PALLOM P.O, NATTAKOM VILLAGE. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYM. ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 431 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)1339/06. The claimant, a 60 year old lady sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.30,381/-. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement. A perusal of the award would reveal that the claimant had sustained a fracture on the right wrist and loss of upper teeth. She had produced the wound certificate etc. X-ray confirm the fracture of the wrist. One of his teeth was removed and two became mobile. Though she produced a bill for Rs.27,881/- out of which Rs.18,800/- is paid towards dental care. The said document was not accepted by the Tribunal on the ground that there is no positive evidence to prove that she had undergone treatment and had incurred that much expenses. She had been only allowed the balance amount. But I feel the fact M.A.C.A. 431 OF 2009 -:2:- remains that she had lost one tooth and two of her teeth were mobile and she had been referred to a dental surgeon. Besides this she had sustained a fracture on the wrist and all these things certainly would have caused her loss of temporary amenities and enjoyment in life and therefore I feel this is a fit case where the loss of amenities has to be increased by Rs.3,000/-. Similarly the implant has to be removed and loss of one tooth coupled with the mobility of two teeth had forced her to expend some amount for replacement etc. Therefore under that head Rs.4,000/- more is granted thereby entitling the claimant to have an additional compensation of Rs.7,000/-. In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.7,000/- with 7.5% 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 judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-