High Court Kerala High Court

P.V.Prabhakaran vs T.Y.Wilson on 4 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
P.V.Prabhakaran vs T.Y.Wilson on 4 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1431 of 2004()


1. P.V.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. T.Y.WILSON, S/O.YACOB,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.K.SHIBU, S/O.KOCHUPENGAN,

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.BINOY RAM

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :04/07/2008

 O R D E R
                            M.N.KRISHNAN, J
                        =====================
                          MACANo.1431 OF 2004
                        =====================

                   Dated this the 4th day of July 2008

                                JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda in O.P.(MV)No.1261 of 1997. The claimant

who has sustained fracture of the fibula was awarded compensation of

Rs.16,000/- by the Tribunal and dissatisfied with the same, the claimant has

come up in appeal.

2. The main grievance of the appellant’s counsel is that the income

taken is inadequate and the Tribunal has totally ignored the disability in

spite of examining the Doctor as PW1. So far as the income is concerned,

the accident had taken place in the year 1997 and the Tribunal had taken it

at Rs.1,500/- and in the absence of materials it will not be correct to shake

that finding. But, so far as the disability is concerned, it was not correct on

the part of the Tribunal to simply reject the Doctor’s evidence on the

ground that there was no complicated issue and that fibula is only a

supporting bone. The Doctor has certified that there is a limitation of

movement and there is tenderness on the fracture side. The functional

MACA 1431/2004 -:2:-

difficulty is also recorded there. The Tribunal should have taken some

disability. Especially the person being a labourer by profession, there is

nothing wrong in fixing 4% disability to award a reasonable compensation.

The annual loss of earning will come to Rs.720/-, multiplied by 13, it will

come to Rs.9,360/-. At least Rs.3,000/- has to be awarded towards loss of

amenities and enjoyment in life. So, it will come to Rs.12,360/-. The

Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in

life. Therefore I award Rs.7,360/- as additional compensation under that

head. Towards pain and suffering, considering the hospitalization and

period of treatment, I enhance it by Rs.1,000/-. No amount is given for

bystander expenses. He was in the hospital as an inpatient for 10 days. I

grant him Rs.500/- towards bystander expenses. Therefore the claimant

will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,860/-.

Therefore MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is entitled to an

additional compensation of Rs.8,860/- with 7% interest on the said sum

from the date of petition till realisation and the insurance company is

directed to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a

MACA 1431/2004 -:3:-

copy of this judgment.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

Cdp/-