IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 696 of 2004(P) ----------------------------------- OPMV.1079/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT: ---------------------------------- REJENDRAN, S/O. L.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, SANTHI BHAVAN, SANTHIVILA, NEMOM (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN MR.SAIJO HASSAN MR.SABU SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. M.K. RATHEESH CHANDRAN NAIR, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, ANANDA BHAVAN, HOUSE NO.TLM.1/61, THIRUVALLAM (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ANJU V.M., S/O. V.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SARAS, SANTHIVILA, NEMOM (P.O),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THAKARAPARAMBU JUNCTION, PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.V.S.BABU GIREESAN, SMT.K.PREETHA JOHN. R3 BY ADV. MR.VPK.PANICKER. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.696 OF 2004 ............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum in OP(MV)No.1079/1995. The claimant, a 35 year old man, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.81,000/= with 9% interest. Dissatisfied with the quantum awarded, the claimant has challenged it in appeal. 2. As per my order dated 29.5.2008 I referred the matter to a Medical Board for assessing the disability. I have specifically directed that the Medical Board to be constituted with a Neuro Surgeon and an ENT etc. The claimant was examined by the Medical Board constituted for this purpose and the Medical Board found that the degree of partial permanent disability as 20% due to opthalmic disability. So, the sum and substance of the disability is the ultimate outcome of the injury sustained in the accident due to various components crystallised which resulted in loss of eye vision. 3. It is quite unfortunate that a young man at the age : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.696 OF 2004 of 36 had lost his vision partially. When 20% is taken as the disability and Rs.1,500/= is taken as the income for the reason that the accident had taken place way back in the year 1995 and the multiplier of 16 is used as per the decisions in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298), the disability compensation would come to Rs.57,600/=, out of which Rs.43,200/= has been awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the additional entitlement under that head would come to Rs.14,400/=. The Tribunal has also granted a sum of Rs.15,000/= as loss of amenities and enjoyment which is really a reasonable compensation under that head. But considering the nature of fracture sustained, the period of treatment undergone etc , I feel the Tribunal should have been a little more liberal in granting pain and suffering compensation. Therefore, I enhance it by Rs.3,000/=. On all other heads, reasonable amount is awarded and therefore the additional entitlement would be Rs.17,400/=. 4. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.17,400/= with 7.5% interest on the said sum from the : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.696 OF 2004 date of petition till 30.9.2000 and from 18.10.2003 till realisation. The respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl