IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1769 of 2006(G) ------------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.1557/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL. .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(MV): ------------------------------------------------------ SIJU, S/O.MADHAVAN, SIMIHUT, CHITTAICODE, KALLAMBALAM, NAVAIKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(MV): ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED ISMAIL, S/O.KOYAKUNJU, ANAS NIVAS, PULLAMPARA DESOM, THEMPAMMOOD, PULLAMPARA DEOM, THEMPAMMOOD, VENJARAMOODU, MANIKYEM VILLAGE. 2. VINOD, S/O.RAVEENDRAN ASARI, ASWATHI BHAVAN, NEAR MARUTHUMMOODU MARKET, KALLARA VILLAGE, DESOM. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., MADAPARAMBIL CHAMBERS, M.C.ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL - R3, SRI.M.M.HUSAIN - R1, SRI.A.ABSALKHAN - R1. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1769 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Attingal, in OP(MV) 1557/00. the claimant sustained injuries in a road accident whereby he has suffered fracture of the radius. It is also seen that he had a fracture on the leg as well. The Tribunal on consideration of the entire materials awarded him an amount of Rs.46,400/- as compensation. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. The main thrust of the argument is regarding the non-acceptance of the disability certificate as such by the Tribunal. The disability certificate has been issued by an Assistant Professor of Orthopedic who also holds the degree of a fellow of the Royal College of Surgery. He has found that there is a malunion of the fracture. It is further seen that there was limitation of movements, dislocation as well as loss of grip strength. He has assessed the disability at 9%. But the Doctor has opined that it is MACA No.1769/06 2 considering that profession. Whatever it may be, the Tribunal has only accepted 5% disability. I feel in the fitness of things it can be increased by another 2%. When the additional 2% disability is calculated, the annual loss of earning will come to Rs.480/- when multiplied by 17 will be Rs.8,160/-. So the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to that extent. Therefore, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,160/- with 7 % interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation from the respondents. The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1769/06 3 MACA No.1769/06 4