IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 1198 of 2009() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1230/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OP(MV) ------------------------ MERCY DEVASSY,W/O. T.K.DEVASSY, THEKKINIYATH HOUSE, ALATHUR DESOM & VILLAGE, MELADOOR P.O. MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.P.V.BABY MR.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OPMV --------------------------- 1. T.K.DEVASSY,S/O.KURIAPPAN, THEKKINIYATH HOUSE, ALATHUR, MELADOOR P.O. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., SOUTH JUNCTION, CHALAKUDY. R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.C.BEENA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.1198 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in OP(MV)No.1230/2004. The claimant, a lady, who is the wife of the first respondent, sustained injuries in a motor accident while she was travelling as a pillion rider. The Tribunal awarded her a total compensation of Rs.23,300/= and it is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal for enhancement. 2. I had perused the award and it can be seen that the claimant was treated as an inpatient in St. James Hospital, Chalakuday for a day with fracture of one tooth, deformity and dislocation of the left elbow. Radiological examination revealed fracture of the elbow as well. Ext.A5 was produced to prove the problem of lumbar spine, but it has nothing to do with the accident for the reason that it had taken place only after 4 or 5 months after the date of the accident. She had expended Rs.7,800/= for medical expenses. : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.1198 OF 2009 3. The main point argued before me is regarding rejection of the disability certificate produced in this case. It is stated that the doctor is not examined. A perusal of the disability certificate would reveal that there was limitation of movement of the elbow. There was weakness of the flexor of the left elbow. There was tenderness on the joint and mild instability of the left elbow. One cannot totally rule out any disability to the person in this case for the reason that it is not a fracture of the elbow alone. It was a dislocated and deformed fracture. 4. Therefore, I feel that at least a disability of 3% can be taken and by applying the principles in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation(2009 ACJ 1298), the multiplier to be used is 15. If the income of Rs.1,500/= taken by the Tribunal is accepted, then the annual earnings would come to Rs.18,000/= and its 3% would come to Rs.540 which when multiplied by 15 would come to Rs.8,100/=. Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment, I reduce the amount to Rs.3,000/= thus by making a total of Rs.11,100/=, out of which Rs.4,000/= is awarded. The balance : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.1198 OF 2009 to be awarded is Rs.7,100/=. Considering the fracture of the elbow with deformity and dislocation and as the claimant is a house wife, certainly it would have caused her mental agony and discomfort. So, for pain and sufferings I enhance Rs.2,000/= by making an additional compensation of Rs.9,100/=. In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.9,100/= with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of the petition till realisation and the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl