IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 323 of 2003()
1. BENNY S/O. JOSEPH, KALAPURAYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOSE S/OMATHEW, KIZHAKKALAYIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. UNITED INDIA, INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.H.SIVARAMAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :16/06/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
....................................................................
M.A.C.A. No.323 of 2003
....................................................................
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing for the second
respondent. Challenge is only against adequacy of compensation awarded
for loss suffered by the appellant under various heads. It is seen that the
appellant as pillion rider suffered injuries such as fracture of right arm and
rupture of the ear besides bruises and minor injuries. Admittedly the
appellant was hospitalised for seven days and his right arm was under
plaster for six weeks. The MACT under various heads awarded a total
compensation of Rs.28,365/-. Counsel for the appellant contended that
appellant was engaged as an employee in a private concern on a monthly
salary of Rs.3,000/-. For want of documents, the MACT fixed earning at
Rs.2,000/- per month. Further, compensation for loss of employment is
granted only for two months. The contention of the appellant is that
appellant was not employed for longer period. Similarly, for pain and
suffering, the claim of the appellant is at much more than what is granted by
the MACT which is Rs.12,000/-. Last contention raised is about the paltry
2
sum of Rs.500/- granted for extra nourishment and bystander’s expense.
Counsel for the Insurance Company opposed enhancement on the ground
that the award is liberal and in accordance with the Schedule provided under
the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. We are of the view that the compensation is inadequate under
various heads. In the first place, compensation for pain and suffering fixed
by the MACT at Rs.12,500/- is too low because disability was on the right
hand of the appellant and appellant’s hand was in plaster for six weeks are
admitted facts. A right hander will be substantially disabled, if his right
arm is under plaster, which admittedly the appellant suffered for six weeks.
It is common knowledge that six weeks in the plaster will take quite some
time for the arm to restore to normal position and achieve flexibility.
Therefore, considering these facts we enhance the compensation for pain
and suffering from Rs.12,500/- to rupees twenty thousand(Rs.20,000/-). So
far as the loss of employment is concerned, we feel appellant is entitled to
three months’ benefit considering his treatment for two months including
plastering of right hand and the time taken for reaching normalcy. We,
therefore, increase the period of loss of employment from two months to
three months. So far as the wages fixed by the MACT at Rs.2,500/- per
month is concerned, even if there is no evidence about the employment in
3
the private concern as accountant, we feel, still a person can earn atleast
Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, we jack up the compensation for loss of
employment from Rs.4,000/- to rupees nine thousand(Rs.9,000/-). The last
claim i.e. cost for extra nourishment and bystander’s expense for
hospitalisation for seven days is increased from Rs.500/- to rupees three
thousand (Rs.3,000/-). Consequently there will be direction to the second
respondent to pay an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest
over and above what is granted by the MACT. The appeal is allowed to the
above extent. Since the amount involved is very small, we direct the
second respondent to make payment within one month from date of receipt
of copy of this judgment.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
V.K.MOHANAN
Judge
pms