IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 1034 of 2005 B --------------------------------------------- OPMV.579/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, WAYANAD, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O. KUNHUMUHAMMED, KOTTA HOUSE, MEPPADI POST, VYTHIRI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.3: ------------------------------------------------------ THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., NOORANAL BUILDINGS, IIND FLOOR, MAIN ROAD, S. BATHERY. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO. 1034 OF 2005 B --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th July, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M.Joseph, J. There is appearance for the appellant and the respondent Insurance Company. We take this Appeal for hearing on consent. 2. Appellant is the petitioner in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has been awarded a sum of Rs.49,400/= as against the claim for Rs.1,50,000/=. The Appeal is against the quantum. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that though the Doctor has certified disability at 8 per cent and the appellant was thirty years of age, entitling him to apply a multiplier of 17, only a lumpsum of MACA.NO.1034/05 B 2 Rs.30,000/= was awarded. She further contends that only Rs.5,000/= was awarded towards pain and suffering. Still further, she points out that there was no amount awarded towards loss of amenities. She points out that the appellant was working as a Supervisor in Chembra Estaste, Meppadi and drawing a monthly income of Rs.4,500/=. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company supported the Award. 4. The tribunal has found that Ext.A9 Certificate shows that the appellant has joined duty on 3.11.01 and is continuing in employment. The tribunal has awarded among other things, Rs.5,000/= towards pain and suffering. The tribunal has also awarded Rs.30,000/= towards partial disability. The injuries sustained by the appellant as noted by the tribunal are as follows: “Undisplaced fracture fight patella upper pole, anterolateral instability right knee, haemormrosis right knee, contusion injury anterior abdominal wall etc.” MACA.NO.1034/05 B 3 5. This is a case where the tribunal has found that the appellant is continuing in the employment. Even if we take the post-retirement income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/= per month and apply the disability at 8 per cent and also invoke the multiplier at 17, the amount will be in the region of Rs.30,000/=. Already Rs.30,000/= was awarded towards partial disability. We are not inclined to grant any amount more towards partial disability. 6. But, we feel that having regard to the nature of the injuries, the appellant ought to have been awarded Rs.5,000/= more towards pain and suffering. The appellant was in hospital as inpatient for nine days. It is also pointed out that there is non- union. On the same basis, we feel that the appellant should have been awarded amount towards of loss of amenities. We award a sum of Rs.10,000/= towards loss of amenities. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is allowed to realise a sum of Rs.15,000/= more with 7.5 per cent interest from the MACA.NO.1034/05 B 4 date of the petition till the date of realisation from the respondent. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge