IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1794 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.176/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- CHANDRAVALLI, W/O. NANU NAIR, RESIDING AT MALABAR HIGH LIGHTS, TALAP,KANNUR-2. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.M.K.SUMOD SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SATHYAN, S/O. KUNHAMBU, PANNERI VALAPPIL HOUSE, KANNAPURAM, P.O. MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.P. GOPALAN, S/O. KANNAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, KANNAPURAM, P.O. MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.29, TEMPLE ROAD, PAYYANNUR. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1794 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV)176/04. The claimant, a lady aged 67 years sustained a deep lacerated wound on the right ankle and crack fracture on the medial mallelous right leg. She was initially admitted on 25.11.99 and discharged on 15.12.99. The main grievance of the claimants is that though the medical bills for Rs.41,277/- has been produced the Tribunal has only granted Rs.13,300/-. The Tribunal in the opening sentence of page 4 of the award refers to some reviews to the petitioner on 30.12.99, 11.1.00 and 26.12.01. But when it goes down it records that there is no document to show that she has been treated in the year 2002. It also refers to one prescription dated 14.4.03 which relates to some contusion on the chest. The Tribunal was not prepared to accept the prescription but accepted the prescription of 2002-06 and opined that it is for M.A.C.A. 1794 OF 2007 -:2:- some other ailments after 2002. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit it is not so and the treatment had been undergone by the claimant only for the injury sustained in the accident and further complication that had developed on account of the said injuries. It is a matter which requires consideration. One cannot simply throw it out on the ground that it relates to later years if the claimant is able to establish that the treatment has been continuous or future treatment was also necessitated on account of the complications that had arisen out of the injuries sustained in the accident. It is a matter that requires consideration. I feel in such matters it is always desirable that medical evidence is tendered before the Tribunal so that it can appreciate to arrive at a decision. It is also submitted that the amount awarded under other heads are also inadequate. Without proving that there had been a prolonged treatment for the claimants that also cannot be considered. So the entire matter requires reconsideration. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back M.A.C.A. 1794 OF 2007 -:3:- for fresh consideration regarding the quantum of compensation. The appellant is permitted to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of his contentions to prove the real medical expenses, the future complications and also regarding the inadequacy of compensation. Needless to say respondents also are permitted to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and thereafter the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 6.10.08. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-