IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1924 of 2006()
1. SASIDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SURESH CHERIAN, S/O.CHERIAN,
... Respondent
2. JOSE SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent :SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :19/08/2009
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.1924 of 2006
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 19th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Since the insurance is admitted we are dispensing
with notice to respondents 1 and 2. By consent of the learned
counsel for the parties to the lis, the appeal is taken up for
hearing.
2. The appellant is the claimant in a petition filed
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As against the
claim for Rs.3 lakhs the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.88,000/-.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and learned counsel for the insurance company. The learned
counsel for the appellant would point out that the Tribunal has
awarded disability compensation by taking the monthly income
at Rs.2,000/- only. According to him A12 certificate shows
that the appellant was earning Rs.7,500/-. The appellant is
the Public Relations Officer in a private company, he submits.
Secondly, he contends that the appellant was an in-patient in
three spells. He was not awarded any amount towards loss of
MACA 1924/2006 -2-
amenities. He also points out that the Tribunal has awarded
loss of earning for four months. He further contends that
though the Medical Board certified 15 percent disability only
12 percent is taken by the Tribunal. Apart from stating that
the medical practitioners who have signed the certificate was
not examined no reason is stated by the Tribunal. Lastly,
the learned counsel contends that the Tribunal has awarded
only 6 percent interest.
4. Learned counsel for the insurance company
supported the award.
5. The first question to be considered is the
income. The appellant is aged 50 years. The accident took
place on 8.3.2001. Even though we are not inclined to rely on
A12 certificate as the person who issued the certificate is not
examined we are inclined to fix the income of the appellant at
Rs.2,500/- per month. On this basis the appellant would be
entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards loss of earning. We find
justification in the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that compensation ought to have been given for loss
of amenities. It is contended that the appellant suffered
serious injuries. In such circumstances, we award Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of amenities. We are also inclined to fix the
percentage of disability at 14 percent. There is no reference
MACA 1924/2006 -3-
in the certificate that the disability is whole body disability.
Taking into consideration the increased income which we have
taken the appellant will be entitled to Rs.8,760/ more.
Further, we find that the appellant is justified in seeking
interest at 7.5 percent instead of 6 percent. Accordingly, the
appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is allowed to realise
Rs.20,760/- more with interest at 7.5 percent from the date
of petition till the date of realisation from the third
respondent. Appellant is also allowed to realise interest at
the rate 7.5 percent on the amount already awarded from the
date of petition till the date of realisation from the third
respondent.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS