High Court Kerala High Court

Shanavas vs P.K.Duraiswamy on 27 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Shanavas vs P.K.Duraiswamy on 27 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA.No. 328 of 2003()


1. SHANAVAS, S/O.AZEEN, RESIDING AT
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.K.DURAISWAMY, RESIDING AT 72,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SELVARAJ, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY, RESIDING AT

3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.JAYASANKAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :27/06/2008

 O R D E R
           J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
                  -------------------------------
                M.F.A.NO.328 OF 2003 (B)
                -----------------------------------
          Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008

                      J U D G M E N T

KOSHY,J.

Appellant/claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident

on 29.12.1997. Total compensation claimed was

Rs.2,00,000/-. Tribunal awarded only an amount of

Rs.1,30,000/- including reimbursement of medical expenses.

He was 25 years old at the time of accident. According to

him, he was a business man earning Rs.3,000/- per month.

But tribunal fixed only Rs.1,500/- as the monthly income.

Considering the evidence and considering the age, we are not

enhancing the monthly income fixed by the tribunal. With

regard to the injuries, tribunal noticed that Ext.A6 wound

certificate and Ext.A7 discharge summary were issued from

the Heart Hospital, Thrissur, which shows that he had the

following injuries:

“1. Brain contusion.

MFA.328/2003 2

2. Brain oedema.

3. Fracture right clavicle.

4. Fracture ribs 6.7,8 on the left side.

5. Cut injury Occipital area

6. Multiple abrasions both feet and shoulders”.

He was treated as inpatient in the Hospital till 1.1.1998. He

was in the Intensive Care Unit also and at the time of

admission, he was semi conscious and disoriented. Ext.A8

Scan report shows his brain injuries. Ext.A9 is the disability

certificate issued by the Neuro Surgeon of the Medical

College Hospital, Thrissur, certifying that the petitioner has

brain oedema and cerebellar trophy. His speech is affected

and has tremor on both hands. He has difficulty to write,

defective walking, climbing up and down, rapidly uncontrolled

movements. This is more on the left side compared to right.

It was also reported that he was fed by relatives with the help

of spoon. The permanent disability assessed was 40%. He

deposed before the court that he cannot recollect from his

memory the incident in detail and there is difficulty in

speaking. He has difficulty to do daily activities such as

eating as the hands will not reach his mouth due to brain

stem injury. But tribunal did not accept the disability

MFA.328/2003 3

certificate merely because the Doctor did not treat him as

PW2, Doctor was examined to prove the certificate. He has

gone through the medical records and also assessed the

disability as on the date of examination and came to the

opinion that the above is permanent. However, tribunal fixed

20% disability on the following reasons as can be seen from

the award:

“He had fracture to the clavicle, deep injury to
the occipital region and had multiple fractures
to the ribs. The brain stem injury was noted
and fluency of speech is lost, he has tremor for
both hands and writing is difficult. He cannot
write on a straight line. However he can sit in
a shop and can do the business. The
percentage of loss of earning capacity for the
purpose of awarding compensation under the
head loss of earning power can be taken as 20.”

We are of the opinion that tribunal went wrong in taking a

lower disability. According to the claimant, he is entitled to

100% loss of earning capacity and he is unable to do any

business or any job. Considering the medical certificate,

atleast 40% ought have been taken as the disability. Tribunal

MFA.328/2003 4

has taken 18 as the multiplier taking into account that he was

25 years at the time of accident. Even though it was

contended that a higher multiplier should be taken, we are of

the opinion that no grounds are stated for fixing a higher

multiplier than that is awarded by the tribunal. If that is so,

he will be entitled to Rs.1,500 x 12 x 40/100 x 18 =

Rs.1,29,600/-. Tribunal has granted Rs.64,800/-. Therefore,

additional compensation comes to Rs.64,800/-. It is submitted

that compensation awarded under other heads are inadequate,

but, considering the amount awarded, we are not enhancing

the same. The additional amount of R.64,800/- should be

deposited by the 3rd respondent Insurance company with

7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit over

and above the decreed amount by the tribunal. On deposit of

the above amount, appellant is allowed to withdraw the same.

Appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
prp

J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.

——————————————————–

M.F.A.NO.328 OF 2003 (B)

———————————————————

J U D G M E N T

———————————————————

27th June, 2008