IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 2303 of 2009() ----------------------------------- OP(MV).233/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OP MV ------------------------------------------------------- NARAYANAN KUTTY, S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR KOARAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARATHAMPILLY KARA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE & P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OPMV --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANANDAN.P.R. S/O. RAJAN, PARAMEL HOUSE, PULLAZHY,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. SOORAJ, S/O. MANI, KADAVIL HOUSE, KALATHODE, OLLOOKKARA VILLAGE. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOLLANNUR DEVASSY SMARAK BUILDINGS, ROUND WEST, THRISSUR. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.BINOY RAM R3 BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2303 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P. (MV)233/04. The claimant, a 48 year old man working in a hospital sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.34,800/- out of which Rs.12,200/- represents medical expenses. The claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit before me that the claimant's fracture had caused him disability and that is why a disability certificate was produced which had been summarily rejected by the Tribunal. It is true that at least some medical evidence has to be adduced. But it may not be possible in all M.A.C.A. 2303 OF 2009 -:2:- cases to do the same. So the Court has to take into consideration the nature of injuries. Here is a case where the claimant sustained a fracture on the malleolus which means that it is a rounded bony process, as the protuberance on each side of the ankle. So the said bone has some thing to do with the control of the ankle movement. The doctor who had examined him radiologically and clinically has found the limitation of movements, weakness, tenderness and also the difficulty in walking, climbing, standing for a long time, incapacity to drive cycle etc. The nature of the job being a manual labourer it requires long use of the leg for a long time without rest. Certainly the fracture on the ankle will cause him difficulty and therefore I am inclined to fix some disability in this case and my reasonable guess is 4%. The Tribunal has fixed the income at Rs.2,000/- and the appropriate multiplier as per Sarala Varma's case(2009 ACJ 1298(Sarala Varma M.A.C.A. 2303 OF 2009 -:3:- v. Delhi Transport Corporation) is 13. When Rs.2,000/- is taken as the income with 4% disability and a multiplier of 13 the permanent disability compensation will come to Rs.12,480/-. Therefore I am inclined to grant that compensation as additional compensation. On all other heads the Tribunal has properly compensated and that does not call for any interference. Therefore the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.12,480/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-