IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 1227 of 2011 ----------------------- OPMV.182/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/: 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUVATTUPUZHA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI - 11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- K.S.RATHEESH, S/O.SREENIVASAN, KALARICKAL HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 683 562 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERD THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== M.A.C.A. NO. 1227 OF 2011 ============================ Dated this the 3rd day of August 2011 JUDGMENT R.Basant, J. The insurer is the appellant. The claimant was a bus driver aged 24 years who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 22/9/2005. He suffered personal injuries including multiple fracture. He was an inpatient for a period of 234 days. He had suffered permanent disability to the tune of 23%. This was certified in Ext. A 39. In Ext.A39, PW2 who was examined before court had given details of the disability suffered. The Tribunal extracted the same in paragraph 18 of the impugned award and we are hence not again repeating the same. The Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.4,35,031/-. This includes the actual medical bills for Rs.1,86,841/- incurred while he was undergoing treatment as an inpatient for a period of 234 days. The Tribunal found that the appellant was involuntarily unemployed for a period of 10 months. The details M.A.C.A. 1227/2011 2 of the compensation awarded are given in paragraph 19 of the award which we extract below: SlNo. head of claim compensation for amount awarded Basis-vital details awarded in a nut shell 1 Loss of earnings 30000 3000 x 10 months 2 Transportation to hospital 45000 3 Extra nourishment 5000 4 Attendance charge 23400 100 x 234 days 5 Treatment expenses 186841 Actual medical bills 6 damage to cloths etc 250 7 pain and suffering 22000 2 fracture IP 234 days 8 loss of amenities 14000 9 permanent disability 149040 10 loss of earning power nil Total 435031 435031/-along with interest 8% p.a. from date of filing till realisation M.A.C.A. 1227/2011 3 2. The challenge is directed only against the quantum of compensation. Called upon to explain and be specific, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved specifically by the assessment of extent of reduction in earning capacity by the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied on the oral evidence of the Doctor, who issued Ext.A39 disability certificate. The disability certificate gives the details as to how the extent of disability was assessed. The whole body disability was assessed at 23% as per the details given in Ext.A39. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this assessment made by PW2 is incorrect and cannot be accepted. The claimant was not examined by a Medical Bord. 4. We are of the opinion in the totality of the circumstances - and considering the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment etc. that the claimant had suffered very serious injuries. The mere fact that the claimant was not referred to a medical board, is according to us, too unsatisfactory a reason to reject the disability certificate issued by a competent medical practitioner. In this case, the claimant was not satisfied by mere production of the disability certificate. He had examined PW2 M.A.C.A. 1227/2011 4 Doctor, who issued the certificate. He was subjected to cross examination also. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that it is not necessary for us to invoke our appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act to interfere with the assessment of the extent of physical disability and consequent reduction in earning capacity suffered by the claimant. We are satisfied that this appeal does not merit admission. 5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed in limine. Sd/- R.BASANT, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE