IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1517 of 2004() ---------------------------------- OPMV.134/1999 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : -------------------------------------- MOHANDAS P.V., S/O. PARANGANATTU VELLOOTTY, ELAVALLY SOUTH DESOM, ELAVALLY P.O., ELAVALLY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------------------- 1. ASHARAFF P.M., S/O. LATE PALLIPARAMBIL MOIDEEN, CHAMAKALA, CHENDRAPPINNI, THRISSUR DISTRICT (OWNER). 2. K.I. MOHAMMED BASHEER, S/O. KOLATHUPARAMBIL IBRAHIM, CHAMAKKALA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT (DRIVER). 3. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NICL GURUVAYOOR BRANCH, SREE NARAYANA TOURIST BUILDING, P.B.NO.42, PIN-680 101. BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------ M.A.C.A.No. 1517 of 2004 ------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P. (MV) No. 134/1999. The claimant, aged 47 years sustained injuries in a road accident. He had a fracture in the parietal bone and also a lacerated wound 5x4 cms in the left parieto occiptial region. He was admitted in the Al Iqbal Hospital, Chenthrappinni. The tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.18,000/-. Dissatisfied with the same, the appeal has been preferred. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the tribunal did not accept the disability certificate A10, even after examination of the doctor. The tribunal rejected the disability certificate on the ground that the doctor has not treated him previously and the complaint that the memory loss is incorrect for the reason that he was able to give clear, cogent answers before the tribunal. The doctor has not conducted any radiological examination and his conclusions are only on the basis of the statement made by the M.A.C.A.No. 1517/ 2004 Page numbers claimant. So one cannot find fault with the tribunal for not accepting the same. But on a perusal of the amount awarded, I feel that, there is inadequacy of compensation so far as it relates to pain and suffering and loss of amenities are concerned. When a man had sustained a fracture on his head with lacerated wound, it is really a serious injury and therefore at least Rs. 8,000/- could have been awarded for pain and sufferings. There was temporary loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, for which also an additional amount of Rs. 2,000/- is to be needed. Therefore, the claimant will be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 4,000/-. In the result, M.A.C.A allowed in part and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 4,000/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the judgment. M. N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE scm