IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 273 of 2001()
1. PREMACHANDRAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIVAKARAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
For Respondent :SMT.M.R.VALSA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :09/01/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & K. Hema, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.F.A. No. 273 of 2001
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of January,2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy, J.
Appellant/petitioner suffered injuries in a motor accident due to
the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the 5th respondent
Insurance Company. The appellant was travelling from Thrissur to
Kanhangad and the accident occurred when the van which he was
travelling hit by a stage carriage. Both vehicles were insured by the
same Insurance Company. It was found that the driver of the van was
negligent and it was insured by the 5th respondent Insurance Company.
As a result of the accident, the appellant suffered the following
injuries:-
i. Fracture of tibia;
ii.Cut injury in front of right pinna;
iii.Swelling and tenderness to right limb;
iv.Lacerated wound on right leg and
v. Abrasion on the left leg.”
He was admitted to Abraham Memorial Hospital, Thaliparamba and
MFA 273/01 2
thereafter referred to West Fort Hospital, Thrissur. He was an inpatient
in the hospital for about nine days. He was put on plaster and under
treatment for several days. As a result of the accident, movements of
the right knee was painful and it was restricted. Disability certificate
Ext.A15 shows that there is 20% disability.
2. As far as the appellant is concerned, he is a cine artist. He was
also appearing in many T.V. series. He had a major role in a film. It is
submitted that as a result of the accident, he had to cancel a contract for
going in a film for a total emolument of Rs.2 lakhs and the contract
was produced as Ext.A9 series. After the accident, he was unable to
do any major role in the film. Of course in minor roles, he was getting
on compassionate ground on very few films. During the pendency of
the appeal, he died. There is no evidence in this case to show that the
death was an after effect of the accident. We are of the opinion that
20% disability assessed by the doctor should not have been disturbed
by the tribunal. If the medical certificate was not accepted, the tribunal
should have sent the victim to the Medical Board for assessing the
disability. The tribunal has assessed 3,000/- as monthly income. The
accident occurred on 11-11-1995. He did not produce any statement to
MFA 273/01 3
show that he was an income-tax assessee. We are of the view that no
interference is needed in the assessment of income by the tribunal. He
was 47 years old at the time of the accident and 13 as the multiplier
having guidance of the Second Schedule. If that be so, the
compensation will be payable Rs.3,000 x 12 x 20/100 x 13 =
Rs.93,600/-. The tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- as loss of earning
power and Rs.40,000/- for disability. Thus, Rs.65,000/- was granted
for disability and consequential loss of earning capacity. Therefore,
balance compensation will be Rs.28,600/-. The additional amount of
Rs.28,600/- should be deposited by the 5th respondent Insurance
Company with 7.5 % interest from the date of application till its deposit
over and above the amount decreed by the tribunal. On deposit, wife
and child of the deceased victim (Supplementary appellants 3 and 4)
are allowed to withdraw the amount in equal proportion.
The appeal is partly allowed.
J.B. Koshy, Judge.
K. Hema, Judge.
mn.
MFA 273/01 4