IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 498 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.1074/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- REJI S/O. APPAI, AGED 29, MADAMBISERRY, VATTAMON, MATHRA P.O., PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. JAMEELA BEEVI, W/O. SHAMSUDEEN, SHEENA MANZIL, VENCHEMPU P.O., PUNALUR. 2. SIYAD, SEENA MANZIL, VENCHEMPU P.O., PUNALUR.(DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER ON I.A. 1949/09 DT.24.7.2009.) 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTARAKKARA. ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 498 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1074 of 1998, a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of 60,206/- Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, this appeal is filed. 2. As the insurance is admitted, we are not issuing notice to the first respondent in this appeal. Th second respondent has already been deleted from the party array. We are taking up the appeal itself for hearing on consent. 3. The learned counsel for th appellant would contend that the income taken by the Tribunal, i,e. Rs.1,700/-, is very low. M.A.C.A.No. 498 of 2004 2 She has produced Exts.A10 and A11 salary certificates to show that the appellant was working as a Supervisor. We feel that the income can be taken as Rs.1,800/- It is further contended that the disability certificates would show that the appellant had permanent disability of 15%. But the Tribunal had taken the disability at 10%. She contends that toward clothing no amount was awarded. 4. The learned counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company supported the award. He submitted that eventhough Exts.A10 and A11 certificates were produced, there is no evidence to prove the same. No doubt, the appellant was examined as PW1. 5. The disability certificate would show that the fracture is united. But there is a shortening by 1”. There is partial ankylosis of (L) ankle joint with range of motion limited, partial ankylosis of (L) knee joint with motion limited and temporary partial disability of 100%. Going by th certificate, we feel that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for the loss of amenities. On the basis of M.A.C.A.No. 498 of 2004 3 the injuries suffered, we award Rs.10,000/- towards the same. Thus the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.12,000/- more. 6. This appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The appellant is allowed to realise an amount of Rs.12,000/- more with 7.5% interest from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from th third respondent. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm