IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1457 of 2005()
1. SUDHEESH RAJ, S/O.SREEDHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GEORGE, S/O.INASU, KOKKAT HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED,
3. GINSON, KOKKAT HOUSE, RAPPAL, PUDUKKAD
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
For Respondent :SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :19/02/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT &
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
M.A.C.A.No.1457 of 2005
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February 2009
J U D G M E N T
BASANT,J
The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us.
He claimed an amount of Rs.4,26,000/- as compensation for
personal injuries suffered by him as a result of the accident
which took place on 29/11/1999. The Tribunal awarded only an
amount of Rs.1,48,000/-.
2. The appellant was aged 35 years. He was allegedly
working as a sales representative of a tobacco wholesale
business man. He was allegedly earning an income of Rs.4165/-
per mensum as per Ext.A13 certificate issued by the employer.
He had suffered multiple fracture. Fracture of tibia and fibula,
dislocation and fracture of left scapula bone, fracture of radius
right, fracture of ulna right are major injuries suffered. He was
an in-patient of the Medical College Hospital for three spells for
a total period of 90 days. His disability was assessed by the
Doctor in Ext.A12 disability certificate at 30%. The appellant
examined himself as PW1. Exts.A1 to A16 were marked on his
side. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the
M.A.C.A.No.1457/05 2
relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the appellant is
entitled to a total amount of Rs.1,48,000/- as per the details
shown below:
Loss of earnings Rs.20,000/-
(Rs.2,500 x 8)
Medical and Miscellaneous
expenses (against bills Rs.12,000/-
produced)
Pain and suffering Rs.12,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.8,000/-
Loss of earning capacity
consequent to disability Rs.96,000/-
(2,500 x 12 x 16 x 20/100)
Total Rs.1,48,000/-
3. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the quantum
of compensation awarded. Called upon to explain the precise
nature of challenge which the learned counsel for the appellant
wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned
counsel for the appellant first of all contends that the monthly
income reckoned by the Tribunal at Rs.2,500/- is not justified.
There was no reason to reject Ext.A13 salary certificate which
shows the income to be Rs.4160/- per mensum, contends the
counsel. Author of Ext.A13 has not been examined. According
M.A.C.A.No.1457/05 3
to us, the Tribunal did not commit any error warranting
appellate interference for not swallowing Ext.A13 which was not
strictly proved. Reckoning the monthly income of Rs.2,500/- per
mensum, does not, in these circumstances, appear to be
unreasonable or unjust.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends
that, at any rate, the acceptance of only 20% as the physical
disability is not justified. We have been taken through the
disability certificate Ext.A12 in detail. Instances of impairment
of physical faculties is narrated in detail on 15 specific aspects in
Ext.A12. Of course, the Tribunal was correct in taking note of
the fact that the appellant had not chosen to examine the author
of Ext.A12. But all the same, the Tribunal was satisfied that
there was disability. We have no semblance of doubt in our mind
that the appellant has suffered disability. The short question
that arises in our mind is whether the Tribunal is justified in
reducing the percentage of disability fixed by the doctor at 30%
to 20%. To ascertain the quantum of compensation payable for
reduction in earning capacity, physical disability can only be an
indicator. We are satisfied, considering the nature of the
disabilities narrated that the percentage of disability can safely
M.A.C.A.No.1457/05 4
be reckoned at 25%. The appellant will consequently be entitled
for a further amount of Rs.24,000/- i.e. (2,500 x 12 x 16 x
25/100 minus 96,000).
5. The learned counsel for the appellant then submits
that the compensation awarded for loss of amenities at
Rs.8,000/- is totally insufficient. The physical disability suffered
by the appellant must necessarily have a reflection on the quality
of enjoyment of life by the appellant for the reminder of his life.
The Tribunal was not realistic and reasonable in awarding only
an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation under this head,
contends the learned counsel for the appellant. In the
circumstances of this case, considering the age of the appellant
at the time of the accident as also the nature of the disability
narrated in Ext.A12, we are inclined to agree with the learned
counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied that award of an
amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of amenities would
be totally justified.
6. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that
the appellant is entitled for a further amount of Rs.12,000/-
under the head of loss of amenities and a further amount of
Rs.24,000/- under the head of reduction in earning capacity
M.A.C.A.No.1457/05 5
consequent to disability as detailed above.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that
interest has been awarded only @ 6% per annum. It is submitted
that interest must have been awarded at least @ 7.5% per
annum as already accepted in several binding precedents. We
agree with the learned counsel for the appellant.
8. In the result,
a) This M.A.C.A is allowed.
b) The impugned award is modified.
c) It is directed that the appellant shall be entitled to a
further amount of Rs.36,000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand only)
along with interest on the entire amount of compensation @7.5%
per annum from the date of the petition. Directions regarding
cost and disbursement of the amount are also upheld.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jsr
M.A.C.A.No.1457/05 6
M.A.C.A.No.1457/05 7
R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
06/02/2009