IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1631 of 2004()
1. PONNAMMA, W/O. BABY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAJEEV, S/O. RAVEENDRAN,
... Respondent
2. SOMARAJAN PILLAI, S/O. GOPALA PILLAI,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
For Respondent :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :05/08/2009
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A. NO: 1631 OF 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th Day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
K. M. Joseph J.
The appellant, a teacher by profession, aged 40 years met with an
accident resulting in serious injuries caused to her and she filed a
petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.54,304/- against a
claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation,
this appeal is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in
calculating the compensation, only the basic pay has been taken. The
M.A.C.A . NO: 1631 OF 2004
:2:
net salary of the appellant is Rs.6,700/- and only Rs.5,125/- is taken,
which is the the basic pay. She further complains that the disability
shown in the disability certificate is 9%, but only 5% is taken by the
Tribunal. Towards pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- is awarded, against
the claim of Rs.33,000/-. Towards loss of amenities, the appellant is
awarded only Rs.18,000/-
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the
award. He would also point out that having regard to the nature of the
injuries, which is fracture of the lower thumb of (L) humerous with
radial N palsy and the period of hospitalisation, there is no scope for
any further enhancement.
5. Admittedly, the appellant is a teacher in an aided school and
rejoined duty after the recovery. There is no warrant for any
compensation on the basis that the injury has resulted in her being
disabled from working and earning her income. She joined duty and
she can continue to work and earn salary till her retirement. The
M.A.C.A . NO: 1631 OF 2004
:3:
Tribunal actually awarded Rs.18,000/- applying multiplier method. If
disability compensation worked out with multiplier 8, the amount of
compensation will be Rs.14,400/-. As already noted, the Tribunal has
worked out amount of compensation at Rs.18,000/-. No doubt we
notice that the certificate issued by Orthopaedics Department of
Directorate of Medical Education, Trivandrum would show that the
appellant had:
“1.The fracture has united with excessive callus
2. Puckered scra 20 cm long over the posterior
aspect of (L) arm
3. Loss of 10% of flexion of (L) elbow
4. Weakness of (L) radial N with only Gr.IV power
of wrist finger extensors.”
6. We also feel that the amount awarded towards pain and
suffering of Rs.5,000/- is on the lower side. Having regard to the facts,
we feel that we should award a further amount of Rs.12,000/- more
under these heads.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is
allowed to realise a sum of Rs.12,000/- along with interest at 7.5%
M.A.C.A . NO: 1631 OF 2004
:4:
interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the
respondents.
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE
dl/