IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 3 of 2005(B) -------------------- OPMV.1853/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- ABRAHAM @ ANIYAN, S/O.THOMAS, MAMMOTTIL HOUSE, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM, KRISHSNANKUNNU BHAGOM, KURICHY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. E.Z.PHILIP, EDAVAZHIKAL HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. DAI PHILIP, S/O.PHILIP, EDAVAZHIKAL HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.2, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vkm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 3 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in OP(MV) 1853/00. The claimant, a 42 year old driver by profession, sustained injuries on the foot. He was treated in the Medical College Hospital and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.12,000/-. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant. 2. Heard the counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal did not consider Ext.A8 disability certificate issued by one of the Doctors of the Medical College Hospital. He had made available for perusal a copy of the said certificate which is issued by Dr. Benjamin George. As per that certificate, the claimant has post traumatic stiffness with limitation of small joints of the right foot and that he gets pain in his foot on walking and standing. Doctor assessed his disability at 6% but has not stated under which scale he has assessed the disability. It does not appear from the certificate that the claimant has been MACA No. 3/05 2 radiologically examined by the Doctor at the time of issuance of the certificate. So one cannot find fault with the Tribunal for not accepting the certificate as such. Neither the Doctor nor the petitioner mounted the box. So the disability as such cannot be accepted. But the fact remains that fracture is on the ankle of the foot. Any injury on the ankle causes terrific pain and loss of balance atleast for a limited period. It has also to be remembered that he is a driver by profession. So taking into consideration all these factors, it has to be held that he would have suffered temporary disability as well as loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. So I feel this is a fit case where an amount of Rs.8,000/- has to be awarded under that head. Therefore the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,000/- with 6 % interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. 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. 3/05 3