IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1449 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1898/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- A.N. KANNAN, PUTHRAYIL HOUSE, PUZHAVATHU P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. RAJU. K.C., S/O. CHELLAPPAN, KARIMALENGARIL PUTHENPURAKKAL (H) PATHANADU P.O., KANGAZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. RAJU KURIAN, PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE CHEERANCHIRA P.O., KOTAYAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHANGANACHERRY BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: pa M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1449 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in OP(MV) No.1898/97. The appellant suffered injuries in a road accident and had sustained a fracture of the ulna and fracture of the neck of radius besides injury on the fore arm. He was treated as an inpatient for 10 days. The Doctor assessed his disability at 11%. Appellant claims Rs,3,500/- as monthly income though he was a student. The Tribunal did not grant any compensation on the basis of the disability certificate. It is true that neither the Doctor was examined nor the claimant had attempted to prove the same. But considering the fact that he had a fracture on the ulna and fracture of the neck of radius besides injury on the fore arm certainly, there must be some difficultly for him. So I fix the disability at 5% taking the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum the loss of earning capacity per annum will be Rs.750/-. Multiplying it with a proper multiplier of 16, he will be entitled to Rs.12,000/- under that head. The Tribunal while granting MACA NO.1449/04 2 compensation for loss of amenities had taken into consideration some aspects since it had disallowed the claim under permanent disability. So I make it Rs.3,000/- under that head i.e., Rs.15,000/- is allowed as compensation for disability plus loss of amenities. So the appellant will be entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.7,500/-. Therefore, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.7,500/- with 7 % interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation from the respondents jointly and severally. 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