IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1598 of 2006() ---------------------------------- OPMV.943/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP.(M.V.) ----------------------------------------------------- SHOUKATH ALI, CHARUVILA VEEDU, PAPER MILLS, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(M.V.): ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DHARMARAJAN PILLAI, THENGUVILA VEEDU, THOTTABHAGAM, KAMUKUMCHERY, PIDAVOOR. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN - R1 SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1598 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur, in OP(MV) 943/99. the claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.31,379/- with 6% interest. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that on account of the accident, the appellant suffered a loss of hearing capacity to an extent of 70%. But the Tribunal had taken only 10% disability and therefore the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. 3. I have perused the award and heard the counsel for both sides. The wound certificate would reveal that the injuries sustained are on the back side and on the wrist of the appellant. Though in the petition there is an averment regarding the injury on the nose and ear, it is not substantiated by the wound certificate. MACA No.1598/06 2 Learned counsel has made available before me a certificate issued by the Doctor which also does not state anything connecting the loss of hearing capacity with the injury sustained in the accident. It only states that when an audiogram is taken it is found that there is hearing loss on both ears. Until and unless this hearing loss is occasioned on account of the injury sustained in the accident, the Tribunal cannot fix any compensation on that ground. But, at any rate the Tribunal has taken 10% disability and calculated the compensation which does not call for any interference. The MACA lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1598/06 3 MACA No.1598/06 4