IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1668 of 2009()
1. ASSANAR @ HASSANAR, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RATHEESH.M.L., S/O.LOHIDAKSHAN,
... Respondent
2. AJEESH KUMAR, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN,
3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :14/01/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January 2010
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
Claimant is the appellant. He suffered injuries in a motor
accident which took place on 06.12.2004. He was an inpatient
for a period of 15 days. He had suffered permanent partial
disability also. Injuries included serious fracture. The Tribunal
on the basis of the materials available before it, came to the
conclusion that the claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.93,215/- as total compensation along with interest @ 7% per
annum and proportionate cost.
i) Loss of earning : Rs.10,000/-
ii) Expense for transportation: Rs. 2,000/-
iii) Expense for extra
nourishment : Rs. 2,000/-
iv) Damages to clothing : Rs. 500/-
v) Expense for treatment : Rs.10,950/-
vi) Expense for bystander : Rs. 1,600/-
vii) Compensation for pain
and suffering : Rs.15,000/-
M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2009 2
viii) Compensation for loss of
amenities : Rs. 8,000/-
ix) Compensation for
disability : Rs.43,200/-
...................
Total : Rs.93,250/-
...................
2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned
award. The amount awarded does not represent just and
reasonable compensation, argues counsel. Called upon to
explain the nature of the challenge which the appellant wants to
mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the
appellant contends that the Tribunal had erred in reckoning only
10% as the reduction in earning capacity while computing the
compensation even though 13% has been certified to be the
extent of disability suffered by PW1 Doctor.
3. The court below had adverted to Ext.A11 disability
certificate in detail. The court below chose to accept that only
10% is the extent of reduction in earning capacity and did not
accept the percentage of disability certified in Ext.A11 which is
proved by the oral evidence of PW1. We are unable to find any
valid reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the
court below in accepting 10% as the reduction in earning
M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2009 3
capacity. Considering the nature of employment of the appellant
as a salesman in a poultry farm, even assuming that the disability
certified in Ext.A11/PW1 were held to be correct, the acceptance
of 10% as the reduction in earning capacity consequent to such
disability does not, at any rate, warrant interference. We are not
persuaded to invoke our appellate jurisdiction to interfere with
the impugned award on that score. No other contentions are
raised.
4. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/-
M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2009 4
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
————————————
C.M.Appl.No.1908 of 2009 in
M.A.C.A No.1668 of 2009
————————————-
Dated this the 14th day of January 2009
ORDER
BASANT, J.
This petition is to condone the delay of 231 days. We have
heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We are proceeding
to dispose of the M.A.C.Appeal straightaway and it is not
necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the
respondents. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that a
lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned.
2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/-