High Court Kerala High Court

Urolath Nirmal Kumar vs Vallikapatta Amarudeen on 28 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Urolath Nirmal Kumar vs Vallikapatta Amarudeen on 28 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 77 of 2002(B)


1. UROLATH NIRMAL KUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VALLIKAPATTA AMARUDEEN, S/O.HAMZA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. V.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. AYYAPPAN,

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER

                For Respondent  :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

 Dated :28/02/2008

 O R D E R
                               K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J.

                          -------------------------------------------------

                                     M.F.A.No.77 of 2002

                          -------------------------------------------------

                       Dated, this  the  28th day of February, 2008

                                          JUDGMENT

The claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1855/1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Manjeri is the appellant. On 28.1.1994 appellant met with an

accident and sustained injuries. He filed a petition claiming compensation. First

respondent remained exparte. Second respondent entered appearance. Insurer

filed a written statement admitting the insurance coverage of the vehicle, but

raising a contention that there was no negligence on the part of the driver.

Quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed. Tribunal found that

appellant is entitled to get Rs.20,000/- as compensation and directed the insurer to

pay the amount. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded the

claimant himself has filed this appeal.

2. In the award Tribunal had stated that appellant sustained contusion

right little finger and abrasion 10 x 3 cm right elbow. But the wound certificate

itself shows that x-ray revealed that appellant sustained a fracture to the right big

toe. It is seen that the appellant appeared before the Medical Board who assessed

the disability at 1%. Tribunal has not taken into account the fracture sustained.

Considering all aspects of the matter I am of the view that Tribunal ought to have

awarded another Rs.6,500/- towards compensation for disability. So appellant is

entitled to get an amount of Rs.6,500/- as additional compensation with 7.5%

MFA No.77/2002 2

interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

In the result, appeal is allowed in part. An award is passed in favour of the

appellant allowing him to recover an amount of Rs.6,500/- as additional

compensation with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date

of realisation. Insurer is directed to pay that amount also . On deposit appellant

can withdraw the entire amount.

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR,

JUDGE.

cks

MFA No.77/2002 3

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

M.F.A.No.77 of 2002

JUDGMENT

28th February, 2008.