IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 298 of 2005() --------------------------------- OPMV.611/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SIJI GEORGE, PUTHUPARAMPIL HOUSE, PALLICHIRA BHAGOM, KUMARAKOM. BY ADV. SMT.MINI ELIZABETH GEORGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. C.RAMAMURTHY, 4, VENGADAPPA GOWDER LAYOUT, POSTAL COLONY, THIRUPOOR, TAMIL NADU. 2. IBRAHIM, S/O. SAIDU SHEKIL 362, KONGU MAIN ROAD, THIRUPOOR, TAMIL NADU. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., KOTTAYAM DIVISION REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. R3 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA). THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.298 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)No.922/1998. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.38,500/= with 9% interest. It is against that decison, the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appeallant as well as the insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellant has made available before me the documents relating to the injury as well as the disability certificate. I had perused the said documents. The wound certificate would reveal that she had sustained a lacerated injury on the parietal bone besides injuries on the nasal region and the scan report revealed that she had a fracture involving left temporal bone. She was treated in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and was inpatient in the said hospital from 5.1.1998 to 17.1.1998. There is nothing else to show : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.298 OF 2005 that at any point of time after 17.1.1998 she had visited the hospital. The medical certificate dated 14.6.2000 issued by a Neuro Surgeon would only state that there is difficulty in concentrating and memory imparement. The doctor certified the disability at 20%. The methodology adopted or the guideline followed for fixing the disability is unknown. Neither the doctor nor the claimant mounted the box to give any evidence in support of their respective contentions. In a case of this nature, where one has sustained fracture of the temporal bone and if there had been frequent problem for her, one should have visited the hospital. In a head injury case, post accident complications cannot ruled out. But if materials are available then only the Tribunal can take notice of it. The disability certificate produced by the doctor does not show anything which is helpful to the Tribunal to decide the issue. I find that the Tribunal had been very liberal in awarding compensation and towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/=. The Tribunal has awarded a very good : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.298 OF 2005 amount for pain and sufferings as well as for loss of earnings. So, I find that the award is only just and reasonable as contemplated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The appeal is devoid of any merit and therefore, it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl