IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 MACA.No. 1747 of 2010() ----------------------- OPMV.918/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ RANJINI MATHEW,AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.MATHEW,PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,ERUVATTY, P.O,ERUVATTY,PIN-670 581. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT NO.3 ------------------------------ M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, PAYYANNUR. ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No. 1747 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011 Judgment Basheer, J: Appellant sustained certain injuries in a road traffic accident while she was 16. She claimed compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant/claimant awarded a sum of Rs.66,200/- towards compensation with 7.5% interest, and directed the Insurance Company to pay the same. The said award is impugned in this appeal primarily on the ground that the Tribunal committed serious illegality in not awarding any compensation under the head of disfigurement. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable compensation under the head of disability inasmuch as the certificate indicating that the appellant has suffered 8% disability was produced by the appellant. But the Tribunal did not advert to the said certificate and refused to award any compensation under that head. 2. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the scars left behind on the face of the MACA.1747/2010. : 2 : appellant had been overlooked by the Tribunal. But it may at once be noticed that the appellant/victim did not choose to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence. It is true that Pw.2 who issued Ext.P9 disability certificate was examined before the Court. But he stated that the injury caused to the appellant would not prevent her from working as a Nurse. Pw.1, the father of the appellant, candidly admitted before the Tribunal that the appellant had been working as a Nurse even now. In other words, there was no evidence available on record to show that the appellant was disabled from pursuing her avocation in life. Still further, there was absolutely no evidence to show that any disfigurement had been caused as an aftermath of the accident. In that view of the matter we do not find any reason why the award passed by the Tribunal should be interfered with on that ground. 3. However, in our view, the compensation awarded to the appellant under the head of loss of amenities has to be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. We do so. Similarly for pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.17,000/-. The said amount is enhanced to MACA.1747/2010. : 3 : Rs.25,000/-. In all other respects the award passed by the Tribunal is sustained. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.