MUHAD P T Vs. EKIRIYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV) 1880/07. The claimant, a 18 year old man, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.61,750/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum the claimant has come up in appeal.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. A perusal of the award would reveal that the claimant had sustained very bad injuries involving almost all parts of the face. He had a fracture on the mandible. He had a fracture on the maxilla. There was fracture and gum separation of the palate, fracture of nasal bone, fracture zygomatic complex and two teeth avulsed. Avulsion is a phenomenon whereby the position is changed. Palate is a part that forms the roof of the mouth. It is divided into hard palate and soft palate. So it can be seen here is an young man who had suffered fracture of maxilla, mandible, zygomatic arch and palate fracture with avulsion of the teeth. Certainly the man would have undergone very agonizing pain and it would have caused him real inconveniences for a long time. The medical expenses claimed is Rs.78,771/-. The Tribunal did not accept item Nos.33 and 43 and awarded Rs.38,000/-. Since it is on facts which is correct I do not want to interfere. Therefore the following enhancement is given in his favour.

(3.) It is certain that the man would not have been able to do any work for four to six months and therefore towards additional loss of earnings I award Rs.6,000/-. Certainly as stated by me earlier the loss of amenities would have been tremendous and therefore towards loss of amenities and enjoyment I enhance it by Rs.8,000/-. Since the entire bones in an around the mouth are involved in the fracture he would not have been able to take solid food or food of his choice for quite a long time and therefore taking stock of the situation I award Rs.5,000/- more towards extra nutritious food and other charges. Similarly there would have been agonizing pain and sufferings. He was inpatient in the hospital for 11 days to start with and subsequently he was again in the hospital for some more days. So taking stock of those facts I enhance the compensation by Rs.2,000/- towards pain and sufferings thus making an additional compensation of Rs.21,000/-. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that at least an interest of 7.5% interest has to be granted for the entire amount which appears to be reasonable and therefore I allow the same.