IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 707 of 2006(C) ---------------------- OP(MV)NO.706/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------- MR.P.MURALI, S/O.P.N.PRABHAKARAN, SINI VILLA, T.C.19/1394 (TC 49/2169-NEW), THAMALAM, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No. 707 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 17th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(MV)No.706 of 2001, whereby it has granted a compensation of Rs.39,000/- with 9% interest. It is seen from the award that the claimant had sustained a fracture of the base of the first metatarsal of the right foot. He had some abrasions on the right big toe and second toe and below knee slab was applied. He had produced documents to show that he was on earned leave for 9 days and casual leave for 3 months. Learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal has only granted 2 months' loss of earning. I feel the Tribunal was perfectly justified for the reason that the fracture sustained was a minor fracture for which such a long leave would not have been necessary. Just because a person takes long leave unless it is established that it was necessitated on account of the treatment he was undergoing, the Tribunal is not bound to award compensation. Further, it appears that he was at the fag end of his service. Most probably there was lot of accumulation of leave and therefore that MACA 707/2006 -:2:- will not be a reason for granting compensation for the entire period. The Tribunal was justified in granting two months' loss of earning correctly. Besides this, the Tribunal has also granted compensation for pain and suffering, loss amenities, medical expenses, etc. and the award appears to be really just and reasonable as contemplated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-