IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 228 of 2009()
1. UNNIKRISHNAN, GEETHA NIVAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SIVANANDAN, MANAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. M.P.RAJAPPAN, MANAPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent :SRI.M.A.GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :20/12/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER,J & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MACA.NO.228 OF 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
The appellant contended before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
that he suffered the following injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on
December 4, 2004:
Laceration of ( R ) heel with pad avulsion
Fracture neck of fibula ( R )
Fracture lateral malleolus ( R )
According to the appellant, he under went treatment, initially in Indo
American Brain and Spine Centre, Chemmanakary and later in Specialist
Hospital, Ernakulam following necrosis of heel pad.
Ext.A13 certificate issued by the Asst. Professor, Orthopeadics in the
Medical College Hospital, Kottayam revealed that the appellant had the
following problems:
Gross scarring ( R ) heel, with sensory deficit
Inability to walk on bare foot
Tenderness (L) heel, shortening 2 cm (R ) lower limb
Restriction of movements
(R ) ankle From plangrade position no dorsi flexion possible, 25
degree plantar flexion possible.
X-ray (R ) ankle and leg: Moderate soft tissue swelling present
Moderate joint space narrowing
Union of fracture lateral malleolus with 5 degree medial
MACA.NO.228 OF 2009 2
angulation, neck of fibula with 5 degree medial angulation.
The doctor certified that the appellant has got a permanent partial
functional disability of 12% based on the above “clinico radiological findings
and according to Mc Bride Scale, taking the body as a whole”. Though
Ext.A13 certificate was available before the Tribunal, no compensation was
awarded under the head of permanent partial disability. Learned counsel
submits that the Tribunal was not at all justified in ignoring Ext.A13 totally.
There is considerable force in the above contention.
Having regard to the nature of the injuries and the impact that the said
injury has caused on the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant has
to be granted a lump sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation under the head of
permanent partial disability. We do so. Under all other heads the Tribunal
has awarded reasonable compensation. Therefore, the appellant is not
entitled to get any enhancement under the other heads. The award is
modified to the above extent.
A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS,JUDGE
pm
