IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 457 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.1503/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- JOSE, S/O.PYLOTH, RESIDING AT CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.CHOOLISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. N.SIVADASAN, S/O.DAMODHARAN, RESIDING AT NAYARASSERY HOUSE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. =========================== M.A.C.A.No.457 of 2009 =============================== Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009. J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 7.6.2000. The appellant was aged 48 years at the time of the accident. He was doing business in timber and was allegedly earning an income of Rs.5,000/- per month. External injuries were suffered by him. Appellant has suffered fracture of phalanx of little toe right. It was contended that the appellant had suffered disability as a result of the accident. No oral evidence was adduced. Exts.A1 to A15 were marked. 2. The Tribunal on an anxious consideration of the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a total amount of Rs.49,200/- as compensation as per the details shown below: M.A.C.A.No.457 of 2009 2 1. Loss of earning : 10,000/- 2. Expenses for transportation : 500/- 3. Expenses for extra nourishment : 1,000/- 4. Damages to clothing : 500/- 5. Expenses for treatment : 13,700/- 6. Expenses for bystander : 500/- 7. Compensation for pain and suffering : 10,000/- 8. Compensation for Discomfiture : 5,000/- 9. Compensation for loss of amenities : 8,000/- ------------- Total 49,200/- ======== Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of Rs.49,200/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. Called upon to explain the precise nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though Ext.A13 disability certificate was produced and that showed that the appellant had suffered permanent physical disability to the tune of 10%, the Tribunal had not reckoned the said disability, no compensation has been awarded under the head for reduction in M.A.C.A.No.457 of 2009 3 earning capacity. Only an amount of Rs.13,000/- was awarded under heads 8 and 9, compensation for discomfiture and loss of amenities. This is not sufficient, reasonable or just, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. We have been taken through relevant materials. The Tribunal obviously was not prepared to swallow the disability certificate, Ext.A13 pressed into service by the appellant. We have been taken through the disability certificate. We feel that the Tribunal was correct in not accepting the disability certificate without demur and completely. The Tribunal committed no error in not accepting the conclusion in the disability certificate that the alleged disability was on account of spondylitis and arthritis developed after a road traffic accident. The certificate was issued accepting that statement of the claimant. There is absolutely nothing to connect the alleged difficulties of the claimant which were perceived by the Doctor on 2.6.2003 with the injuries which were suffered by him in the accident on 7.6.2000. Appellant was not examined before the Tribunal. The Doctor who issued Ext.A13 was also not examined. The Tribunal took note of M.A.C.A.No.457 of 2009 4 the injuries suffered by the appellant as a result of the accident and the nature of the difficulties experienced by the appellant described in Ext.A13. We are certainly of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error warranting appellate interference in coming to the conclusion that Ext.A13 cannot be accepted safely to come to a conclusion about loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal, it appears, did accept that some discomfitures/difficulties must have been experienced by the appellant on account of the injury suffered and a total amount of Rs.13,000/- is seen awarded under heads 8 and 9. We are not satisfied that any such error has been committed by the Tribunal which warrants appellate interference. The challenge fails and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. bkn/-