IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 736 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.1395/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- CHANDINI BALAKRISHNAN, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, PUNNAYOOR HOUSE,MANIKANTESWARAM P.O. KALLOOR, VIA VADAKKEKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO3. --------------------------------- 1. BABU, S/O.CHANDRAN, MALLOTH HOUSE, P.O.CHITTILAPPILLY. 2. DIJESH, S/O.BHASKARAN, EDATHALA HOUSE, P.O.CHITTILAPPILLY, THRISSUR. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO,LTD., KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 736 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. 1. Claimant before the Tribunal is in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. She sustained compound comminuted fracture of femur with bone loss and fracture on the right hand with radio-ulnar joint dislocation. Medical records produced before the Tribunal revealed that the appellant had undergone various bone grafting surgeries and prolonged treatment for a considerably long period, due to non-consolidation of the femur fracture. She was working as an Anganwadi worker. It has also come out in evidence that she was also working as an LIC agent at the time of the accident. Various certificates were produced in order to prove the income derived as Anganwadi Worker, as well as to prove the long span of leave taken by her. Certificate from LIC was also produced to prove that she was working as an agent and was getting a commission of Rs. 14,250/- during the previous year. The injuries sustained to her had 2 resulted in permanent disability which was assessed in Ext. A34 certificate as 30%. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 2,30,300/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and standing counsel for the third respondent-insurance company. The appellant contended that inspite of clear proof regarding monthly income at Rs.2500/-, the Tribunal had not adopted multiplier method of calculation and only a lumpsum amount of Rs. 80000/- was awarded under the head of compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power, which is unrealistic and inadequate. It is also contended that inspite of evidence of serious disability and discomforts experienced by the appellant, the Tribunal had failed to grant any compensation on account of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. 3. On an anxious consideration of the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal had granted reasonable compensation under different heads. However, we feel that the amount of Rs. 80,000/- granted under the head of permanent disability is slightly on the lower side. We are inclined to increase the amount by a further sum 3 of Rs. 15,000/-. We are also inclined to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. As a result, the appellant is entitled to a total enhancement of Rs. 25,000/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the total compensation of Rs. 2,30,300/- awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- which will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of Claim Petition till payment. The third respondent-insurance company is directed to make payment of the amount within a period of three months. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C. K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk 4