IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1869 of 2006(T)
1. T.K. SAHADEVAN, AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.S. SUSHIL RAJ, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN,
... Respondent
2. SHAJU, S/O.GEORGE,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHISH
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :03/03/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT &
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
M.A.C.A.No.1869 of 2006
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of March 2009
J U D G M E N T
BASANT,J
The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us.
He claimed compensation for personal injuries suffered by him in
a motor accident that occurred on 24/6/1997. The claimant was
aged 43 years on the date of the accident. He claimed to be a
business man dealing in country bricks. He claimed that he was
getting an income of Rs.5,000/- per mensum. He had suffered
multiple fractures and head injuries. There was injury to the
brain also. He was an in-patient for a period of 27 days. He had
allegedly continued his treatment for a long time after the
incident. He allegedly has suffered permanent disability. Ext.A7
disability certificate was issued by the medical board. It showed
that the appellant has suffered disability to the tune of 8%. He
was found to have stiffness of the right temperomandibular joint
and disfigurement due to depression of right maxillary eminence.
It is also certified that there is impairment of memory. He was,
it is reported, on anti epileptic drugs which he will have to
continue for a long period of time.
M.A.C.A.No.1869/06 2
2. Before the tribunal Ext.A1 to A7 and Ext.B1 were
marked. No oral evidence was adduced. The tribunal on an
anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the
conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a total amount of
Rs.1,71,099/- as per the details shown below:
1. Compensation for disability Rs.18,000/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
3. Transport to hospital Rs.2,000/-
4. Extra nourishment, bystander etc. Rs.2,700/-
5. Loss of amenities including
disfiguration Rs.50,000/-
6. Loss of earnings for one year Rs.15,000/-
7. Medical Bills Rs.33,399/-
Total Rs.1,71,099
3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
award. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the
appellant contends that the tribunal has erred grossly in
reckoning the multiplicand at Rs.1,250/- only for the claim of a
business man aged 43 years who was having a wife and two
children depending on him at the time of the accident. The
M.A.C.A.No.1869/06 3
multiplicand reckoned is grossly inadequate and perversely low,
contends the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The learned counsel for the insurance company, on
the contrary, contends that a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has
been awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of
amenities and disfiguration in addition to the amount of
Rs.18,000/- awarded as compensation for disability. In any view
of the matter, the total amount awarded is absolutely fair, just
and reasonable and the same does not warrant interference at
all. In the total absence of any tangible evidence to indicate the
employment and income of the claimant, the tribunal committed
no error in fairly assuming that the appellant must have been
earning an income of Rs.1,250/- per mensum. The incident took
place in 1997, points out the learned counsel for the insurance
company.
5. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we
are satisfied that the total amount of Rs.1,71,099 under the
various heads shown above is eminently fair, reasonable and just
and the amount awarded by the tribunal does not at all warrant
appellate interference. We are of the opinion that the
M.A.C.A.No.1869/06 4
comparatively higher amounts awarded for the loss of amenities
and pain and suffering neutralises and nullifies the criticism that
a higher amount should have been reckoned as the multiplicand,
that is the monthly earnings. Even that, on the basis of the
materials available, does appear to be absolutely fair, reasonable
and just. We are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned
award by invoking the appellate jurisdiction.
6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jsr
M.A.C.A.No.1869/06 5
M.A.C.A.No.1869/06 6
R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
06/02/2009