IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1431 of 2004() ----------------------- MVOP.1261/1997 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER -------------------------------------- P.V.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLEMKUNNU DESOM, VELUKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. T.Y.WILSON, S/O.YACOB, THOMMANA HOUSE, MOTHIRAKANNI P.O., CHALAKUDY. 2. P.K.SHIBU, S/O.KOCHUPENGAN, PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLEMKUNNU DESOM, NADAVARAMBU P.O. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, V BROTHERS BUILDING, GURUVAYOOR ROAD, KUNAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN - R2 SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACANo.1431 OF 2004 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda in O.P.(MV)No.1261 of 1997. The claimant who has sustained fracture of the fibula was awarded compensation of Rs.16,000/- by the Tribunal and dissatisfied with the same, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. The main grievance of the appellant's counsel is that the income taken is inadequate and the Tribunal has totally ignored the disability in spite of examining the Doctor as PW1. So far as the income is concerned, the accident had taken place in the year 1997 and the Tribunal had taken it at Rs.1,500/- and in the absence of materials it will not be correct to shake that finding. But, so far as the disability is concerned, it was not correct on the part of the Tribunal to simply reject the Doctor's evidence on the ground that there was no complicated issue and that fibula is only a supporting bone. The Doctor has certified that there is a limitation of movement and there is tenderness on the fracture side. The functional MACA 1431/2004 -:2:- difficulty is also recorded there. The Tribunal should have taken some disability. Especially the person being a labourer by profession, there is nothing wrong in fixing 4% disability to award a reasonable compensation. The annual loss of earning will come to Rs.720/-, multiplied by 13, it will come to Rs.9,360/-. At least Rs.3,000/- has to be awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. So, it will come to Rs.12,360/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Therefore I award Rs.7,360/- as additional compensation under that head. Towards pain and suffering, considering the hospitalization and period of treatment, I enhance it by Rs.1,000/-. No amount is given for bystander expenses. He was in the hospital as an inpatient for 10 days. I grant him Rs.500/- towards bystander expenses. Therefore the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,860/-. Therefore MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,860/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a MACA 1431/2004 -:3:- copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-