IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 955 of 2006()
1. U.K.SELVARAJ, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MR. KUNJAHAMMED,
... Respondent
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.
For Respondent :SRI.S.MAMMU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :07/07/2008
O R D E R
J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ.
=====================
M.A.C.A.No.955 of 2006
=====================
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
The appellant – claimant sustained injuries in a motor
accident on 9.7.1998. The Tribunal found that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent, the driver
of the bus insured by the second respondent. But against a claim
of Rs.1,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.45,750/-. The
only dispute is regarding the quantum of compensation.
2. The Tribunal did not award any compensation for
permanent disability and consequential loss of earning power.
The injuries as found by the Tribunal are as follows:
“The petitioner sustained the following injuries
as revealed from Ext.A6 wound certificate issued
from Medical Trust Hospital:
“1. Black eye right.
2. Bleeding from the left ear.
3. Fracture of right clavicle and left clavicle.
MACA 955/06 -: 2 :-
4. Fracture of right second toe.
5. Lacerated wound of right wrist 1×0.5 cm x
0.5 cm.
6. Small lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the
right side of chest and right arm.
7. Abrasion on the right forearm.
8. Fracture of right zygoma.
Orthopaedic consultation was done for the
fracture of both clavicle and right 2nd metatarsal
bone.
X-ray chest – Fracture of left and right clavicles.
X-ray right foot – Dislocation of proximal
interphalangeal joint of 2nd toe.
Fracture of proximal phalanx of 4th
toe shaft.”
Petitioner was in the hospital for 17 days. Ext.A7 is
the discharge summary. Petitioner suffered bilateral
clavicle fracture, dislocation of PIP joint and fracture
of proximal phalang of 4th toe (R). The treatment
was conservative. Ext.A8 is the certificate issued by
the hospital stating that petitioner had also suffered
mild head injury. There was fracture to left temporal
bone.”
3. According to the claimant, he is unable to drive long
trips. According to the Tribunal, since he is able to drive, it
MACA 955/06 -: 3 :-
cannot be said that he has permanent disability. But for the loss
of amenities of life, Rs,12,000/- was awarded. Considering the
injuries mentioned in the medical certificate we have referred the
matter to the Medical Board, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam
for assessing the permanent disability if any. The Doctor certified
that permanent disability suffered by the appellant is 5%. So,
the compensation can be calculated for 5% disability. He was
aged 31 at the time of the accident. The accident occurred in
1998. Taking the guidance from the 2nd Schedule, 17 can be
fixed as multiplier. He was a driver by profession. He was
maintaining a family. Even if he was getting only Rs.100/- per
day, Rs.2,500/- can be fixed as monthly income for 25 days work
in a month. So, we fix Rs.2,500/- as monthly income. If that be
so, the compensation payable for 5% disability will be
Rs.25,500/- (2500x12x5/100×17). The Tribunal has awarded
Rs.12,000/- for loss of amenities. Considering the fact that no
compensation was awarded for permanent disability, loss of
earning power and loss of amenities, etc., he is entitled to
Rs.13,500/-. The claimant had three fractures. According to the
claimant he was advised to take best rest for six months.
MACA 955/06 -: 4 :-
Considering the above facts we are of the opinion that he was not
able to do the work for at least four months. Therefore, for loss
of actual earnings for four months he is entitled to Rs.10,000/-.
The Tribunal has granted Rs.3,000/- for actual loss of earnings.
So, the additional amount he is entitled to for the actual loss of
earning is Rs.7,000/-. Thus, the total additional amount payable
is Rs.20,500/-. We are of the opinion that sufficient
compensation has been granted under other heads.
4. The additional amount of Rs.20,500/- should be
deposited by the second respondent – Insurance Company with
7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit. On
deposit of the amount, the appellant is allowed to withdraw the
same.
The appeal is partly allowed.
J.B.Koshy,
Judge.P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.ess 19/7