IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1191 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.569/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- VINOD, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT KARTHIAYANI NIVAS, P.O.VANDAZHI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------- 1. C.M.MAHAROOF, S/O. IMBICHI, RESIDING AT CHERIYAMALAKKAL HOUSE, CITY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. HANEEFA, S/O. ABDULLKKUTTY, RESIDING AT CHETTALI HOUSE, PARAPPUR P.O., KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, COURT ROAD, MANJERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R1 SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1191 of 2007 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Raman, J. Appellant injured in a motor accident was awarded compensation by the MACT, Thrissur, of an amount of Rs.2,30,900/- under various heads with 7% interest. Inter alia contending compensation awarded is inadequate this appeal has been filed. That accident occurred while he was proceeding in a van, a lorry from the opposite direction came in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the van as a result of which he was thrown out and sustained serious injuries. The accident occurred at Thrissur - Palakkad National Highway, when it reached at Elamthuruthi. He was treated in different hospitals; first in the Heart hospital, Thrissur, there after, Medical College Hospital, Thrissur and in a private hospital also. He was a driver attached to a private company Globe Agency. As a result of the accident he suffered some permanent disability and he could not continue his avocation as a driver. At the time he gave evidence as PW1, he was employed as a telephone attender in a private company drawing lesser salary than that he was MACA No. 1191 of 2007 2 drawing as driver. That negligence attributed on the part of the lorry driver was found proved by the Tribunal. The only point arises as to whether the appellant is entitled to for any additional compensation. 2. Appellant produced employment certificate Ext.A10 to prove that his salary is Rs.3,750/-. But while examining as PW1, he deposed that his salary was only Rs.3,250/-. He also admitted that though he underwent treatment for a period of 7 months there was no loss of earning as the accident occurred while on duty. Admission on the part of the PW1 would clearly show that he speaks the truth and so his veracity is beyond question. The Tribunal however fixed his salary as Rs.2,500/- Even his admission against Ext.A10 is accepted, the Tribunal fixed his monthly income as Rs. 2,500/-Though it is contended that 30% permanent disability was assessed by the Doctor and the certificate Ext.A12 proved by PW2 by examining himself, the Tribunal reduced the disability percentage to 20%. It is contended that the Tribunal should not have reduced the disability percentage. Normally in a case, when Medical certificate produced and the Doctor is examined, if there is any doubt with regard to the percentage of disability as certified proper course is to refer to the Medical Board. But it is not done. However at this distance of time to prevent delay, we proceed to assess the reasoning of the Tribunal to reduce the percentage. MACA No. 1191 of 2007 3 3. We find that the Tribunal observed that the discharge certificate produced in the case does not show that the fracture was mal united. The basis of which the certificate was issued later as per Ext.A12 is based on such mistake of fact. The Doctor while examination deposed that he do not remember as to whether in this case he had given certificate based on radiological report. In such circumstances, the percentage of disability at 20% cannot be said to be without any reason. Now considering the fact that he was employed as a driver and he is not getting the same income which is an aspect to be borne in mind while assessing the compensation, we refix the income as Rs. 3,250/- per month in which case compensation will work out to Rs.1,40,400/- in the place of Rs.1,08,000/- Therefore he is entitled for the balance amount of Rs.32,400/- as an additional compensation. 4. Eventhough, it is contended that for future treatment, no amount is awarded, we find that PW1, the injured himself did not say anything about his future treatment. The Doctor who is examined as PW2 also did not say any future treatment was necessary. It is also not shown removal of implants as necessary or that it was subsequently removed. Even though the appeal was admitted in 2007 nothing prevent the appellant to produce such additional materials if any and that has also not been done. In the circumstances, we do not find the appellant is entitled MACA No. 1191 of 2007 4 for any amount of compensation towards future medical expenses. 5. The compensation has been rightly assessed and awarded under various other heads and we do not find any interference is call for. In the result, the appellant will be entitled for the compensation of Rs.32,400/- with 7% interest which shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Appeal is allowed as above. No cost. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dnc