IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 568 of 1996(D)
1. K.SURESH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MATHAIKUNJU
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP
For Respondent :SRI.M.A.GEORGE
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.568 OF 1996
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Koshy, J:
The appellant/claimant sustained injuries in an accident on
28.1.1990. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the 2nd respondent, driver of the vehicle which was
insured by the 3rd respondent insurance company and the
compensation awarded was directed to be deposited by the 3rd
respondent. Against a claim of Rs.2,20,000/=,only Rs.32,879/= was
awarded. The only dispute is regarding the quantum of
compensation. It is the contention of the appellant that he was
getting Rs.2,500/= as monthly income. He was a Mason and he
produced Ext.A8 salary certificate to that effect. The Tribunal did
not accept the same. It was not proved. Since the accident
occurred in the year 1990, the Tribunal assessed monthly income in
the absence of material evidence as Rs.1,500/=. We see no
ground to enhance the same. The next contention is that the
doctor, who treated him assessed the disability at 20%. There was
compound fracture on the knee. The wound certificate shows the
MFA.NO.568/96 .
2
following injuries:
“1. Lacerated wound-front of (L) knee
exposing he knee joint.
2. Lacerated wound 10x4x2 cm medical
aspect of forearm (L).
3. Lacerated deep wound – dorsal aspect
of (L) foot.
4. Multiple abrasions.”
Ext.A4 discharge certificate shows that even skin grafting had
to be resorted to heal, one of the injury. The Tribunal found that
even though fracture as such has not been properly proved, the
injury on the knee portion was serious, which had to get attention
from the hospital authorities for several days. The disability
assessed by the doctor was not accepted because doctor was not
examined at that time. According to the appellant, even though
Rs.1,500/= was fixed as his monthly income, for 20% disability, he
would get a compensation of Rs.64,800/- but only Rs.15,000/= was
awarded for disability and loss of earning power. Considering fracture
on the knee which needed long term treatment, we are of the
opinion that Rs.5,000/= more should be awarded for disability, loss
of earning capacity, discomforts and other after effects of the injury.
The 3rd respondent insurance company is directed to deposit
Rs.5,000/= more with 7.5% interest from the date of application till
MFA.NO.568/96 .
3
the date of deposit. On deposit of the amount, the appellant is
allowed to withdraw the same.
J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE.
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
cl
MFA.NO.568/96 .
4
J.B. KOSHY &
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ.
M.F.A.NO.568 OF 1996
JUDGMENT
27th day of June, 2008.