IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 15 of 2010(A)
1. ANTO, S/O. OUSEPH, VLLACHIRAKKARAN HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.V.JOY, CHETTUPUZHAKKARAN HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. KANDAN,
3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
4. V.SANKARANKUTTY, S/O. VELLAYATH
For Petitioner :SRI.V.BINOY RAM
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :07/04/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
== = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A.NO. 15 OF 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = =
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P(MV)
No.340/2006. The claimant sustained injuries in a road
accident and he has been awarded a compensation of
Rs.13,300/-. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant has
come up in appeal for enhancement.
2. Heard the counsel for both sides.
3. A perusal of the award would reveal that the claimant
had sustained comminuted fracture of the shaft of the 3rd and
4th metacarpal of left hand. He was treated in Lal Hospital
and later in the Medical College Hospital. The claimant has
produced a disability certificate of 4% and it was not
accepted for want of evidence. It has to be stated that
neither the claimant is examined nor the Doctor to prove the
M.A.C.A.NO. 15 OF 2010
2
disability. Considering the nature of the injury, there cannot
be such disability as well. Therefore, I do not find mistake
with the Tribunal in not accepting the disability certificate.
But it has to be remembered that he had sustained fracture
of 2 metacarpal of hand and was under treatment for some
point of time. Being a Mechanic by profession, his income
can be fixed at Rs.2,500/- and for two months he can be
awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earning. Therefore, the
claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of
Rs.3,000/- under that head. Similarly, for pain and suffering,
I enhance it by Rs.2,000/-. Considering the fact that he is a
Mechanic by profession and has sustained injury there
would have been loss of amenities and temporary disability
to considerable length of time for which, I award Rs.2,000/-
more. Thus the claimant will be entitled to an additional
compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only)
with 7% interest p.a., from the date of petition, till
M.A.C.A.NO. 15 OF 2010
3
realisation and the respondent insurance company is
directed to deposit the additional compensation amount
within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this Judgment.
M.N. KRISHNAN
JUDGE
nl