High Court Kerala High Court

C.P.Rajeevan vs Rajeevan E.M. on 7 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
C.P.Rajeevan vs Rajeevan E.M. on 7 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 663 of 2004()


1. C.P.RAJEEVAN, S/O. NARAYANAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RAJEEVAN E.M. S/O. KUNHIRAMAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. M.PRADEEPAN S/O. ACHUTHAN,

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR

                For Respondent  :SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :07/07/2008

 O R D E R
                            M.N.KRISHNAN, J
                        =====================
                         MACA No.663 OF 2004
                        =====================

                   Dated this the 7th day of July 2008

                                JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV)No.347 of 1998. The claimant a

toddy tapper by profession sustained fracture of his leg and the Tribunal

awarded him a compensation of Rs.72,900/- which takes in about

Rs.30,000/- as medical expenses. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimant

has come up in appeal.

2. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the

insurance company. Perused the records made available. It can be seen that

the claimant sustained fracture of the leg as a result of which he was initially

treated in the Unity Health Complex, Mangalore for 22 days. Thereafter

internal fixation was removed for which purpose he remained in the hospital

for 3 days. The 3rd discharge card would reveal that bone grafting was done

on 8.9.1997 and he was discharged on 21.9.1997. The Tribunal fixed his

income at Rs.1500/- and negatived the disability certificate issued on the

MACA 663/2004 -:2:-

ground that it is not issued by the Doctor, who has treated him and

thereafter proceeded to work out the compensation. So far as the

profession of a toddy tapper is concerned, it is not correct to fix his income

at Rs.1,500/- for the reason that his income is much more than that. It can

be seen that he had produced a document to show that his income is about

Rs.7,000/-. It is a certificate issued by the General Secretary of the trade

union range. I think without any hesitation, the court can fix the income at

Rs.2,500/-. The main complaint of the Tribunal was that the disability

certificate had been issued by the Doctor, who has not treated him. The

learned counsel had produced before me the discharge summary card which

indicates the name of Umanandamalliya. There is also signature either by

Umanandamalliya or on behalf of him by the hospital authorities. This is a

case where a patient had to undergo treatment for 38 days as an inpatient on

account of the injury sustained and on account of the malunion fracture

bone grafting has to be done. The copy of the disability certificate would

show that there has been shortening of the leg by 2 cms and for the purpose

of grafting, bone from the iliac crest has been removed. The disability

certificate explains the total treatment that he has undergone which is

clearly evident from the discharge card itself and therefore it is not correct

to reject the disability certificate in toto to disallow compensation to the

MACA 663/2004 -:3:-

claimant. It has to be further remembered that a toddy tapper by profession

who requires a very healthy leg had been badly fractured which resulted in

shortening of the leg coupled with the limitation of movements and

therefore some disability has to be taken up, taking into consideration the

factum of his job as a climber. I feel at least 8% disability can be taken as

the lowest and on that basis the compensation can be calculated. When it is

taken as 8% and the monthly income at Rs.2,500/- the annual loss of

earning capacity will come to Rs.2,400/- which when multiplied by 18

would be Rs.43,200/-. Out of this amount, Rs.8,000/- has been awarded

towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life which can be deducted

since percentage disability compensation is being awarded. Therefore the

claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation for disability at

Rs.35,200/-. Since it is seen that he had not been able to do any work for a

period of six months then the difference in compensation at the rate of

Rs.2,500/- would come to Rs.6,000/- makes the additional compensation of

Rs.41.200/-.

Therefore the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to

an additional compensation of Rs.41,200/- with 7% interest on the said sum

from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is

directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a

MACA 663/2004 -:4:-

copy of this judgment.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

Cdp/-