IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 506 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.487/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE O.P(MV) NO.487 OF 2002: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARVATHY, W/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, MARAHUR (POST), OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT NO.3 IN OP (MV) NO.487 OF 2002: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (NO RELIEF CLAIMED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 IN THE MACT, HENCE THEY ARE NOT MADE PARTY IN THIS APPEAL). BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 506 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, in OP(MV) No.487/02. The appellant sustained injuries in a road accident and she has suffered a fracture LE radius and also in the pelvis. She was treated as an inpatient from 19.3.02 to 25.3.02. The Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.32,350/-. It is against that decision the present appeal is preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit before me that being a poor coolie who has to toil hard by physical labour, the fracture of the radius as well as the pelvis has caused her substantial difficulty. Even in the absence of a disability certificate the court should have taken into consideration those factors for awarding compensation. Admittedly, the appellant is a labourer who had sustained two fractures, which will affect her working capacity not only as a labourer but also as a house wife. There is nothing wrong in these type of cases to assess some disability and calculate the loss of earning capacity to do justice to the party. MACA NO.506/04 2 3. After hearing both sides, It is only just and reasonable to take the percentage of disability at 10% and calculate the compensation. When the notional income of Rs.15,000/- is taken and 10% is the disability, the annual loss of earning power per year will be Rs.1,500/- which if multiplied by 15 will be Rs.22,500/-. The court has only granted a sum of Rs.4,000/- for the loss of amenities. Therefore, I feel this is a fit case where an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- has to be awarded as compensation to the claimant. Therefore the MACA is partly allowed and the appellant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.20,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit that amount within a period of 60 days from today. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA NO.506/04 3 MACA NO.506/04 4 MACA NO.506/04 5