IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 599 of 2000()
1. K.VELAYUDHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANIKANDAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHADRASEKHAR
For Respondent :SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :10/07/2007
O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY and K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
—————————-
M.F.A. No. 599 of 2000
—————————-
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2007
Judgment
Koshy, J.
Appellant, who was employed as an Extra-
Departmental Postman, met with an accident, at the age of
31 due to the negligence of the first respondent driver
of the vehicle owned by the second respondent. The above
vehicle was, admittedly, insured by the third respondent
insurance company. Tribunal found that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent
driver. However, against a claim of Rs.4,41,000/-, only
a total compensation of Rs.55,700/- was awarded with
interest. Only quantum of compensation is disputed in
this appeal.
2. As far as injuries are concerned, Ext.A2 is
the accident register-cum-wound certificate issued from
the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode which shows that
there were multiple abrasions over the face, limbs etc.
Ext.A4 is the reference card issued from the Medical
College Hospital. It shows that he was admitted there on
2.4.1995 and was discharged on 18.4.1995. There is also a
M.F.A.No.599/2000 2
mention that on 8.4.1995 operation and frontal cranietony
was conducted and evacuation of intra-cerebral haematoma
was done under general anasthesia. Direction was made to
attend the Neuro Surgery Department. The appellant had
complained anosmia. There is another O.P. card which is
seen within Ext.A4. For the sake of convenience it is
marked as Ext.A4 (a). He had gone to the Medical College
Hospital on 10.6.1995 and thereafter on 19.6.1995,
18.7.1995, 27.7.1995, 3.8.1995, 10.8.1995, 21.9.1995,
27.10.1995 and 18.12.1995. On 27.5.1995 it was noted
that the petitioner had complained giddiness. Ext.A5 is
another O.P. ticket which shows that he had gone to the
hospital on 1.2.1996, 1.4.1996, 7.2.1996 and on six
subsequent occasions also. It shows that it is a case of
infra-cerebral haematoma evacuated. Ext.A16 is the
disability certificate issued by Dr.M. Gangadharan,
Assistant Professor of Surgery, Medical College Hospital,
Kozhikode reads as follows:
“This is to certify that Mr.Velayudhan
K.,34 years, S/o. Thami, Kuttippalayil
House, P.O. B.P.Angadi, Tirur, involved in
an R.T.A. and admitted in the Medical
College Hospital on 2.4.1995 I.P. No.13478
and discharged on 18.4.95. He sustainedM.F.A.No.599/2000 3
Fracture occipital bone (left side) contra
coup brain injury was present. Discharged
on 18.4.95.
Today, I examined as per his request to
assess the disability and found that there
is depressed area on the left frontal region
just above the left eye brow 8 x 7 c.m.
Brain pulsation visible. Frontal bone lost
in this area. Damaged the alfectory nerve
present and leads to loss of smell. Partial
loss of taste sensation in the half of the
tongue. Recurrent attack of Epilepsy and
giddiness present. He cannot walk and stand
in the sun light for a long time as a result
of fatigue. Loss of memory power present.
As a result of part head injury
complications he suffers 40% (Fourty
percent) permanent disability.”
Tribunal did not rely on the above certificate for two
reasons. First reason is that Dr.Gangadharan was not a
person who treated the claimant. Secondly, on seeing the
claimant, the tribunal himself found that he is not a
person with 40%disability and many of the defects
mentioned in Ext.A16 certificate were absent. The
tribunal only awarded Rs.15,000/- for disability and
another Rs.15,000/- for disability for discomfort and
loss of amenities. According to the tribunal, there is
M.F.A.No.599/2000 4
no evidence to show that he lost his job and, therefore,
compensation need not be calculated on a multiplier
method. It is true that claimant did not lose his job
and a multiplier method calculation may not be correct.
But, at the same time, main contention of the petitioner
is that he was only an E.D. postman. He will have to
continue in the same post and he will not be able to get
promotion as a regular postman which will affect his
earnings. Admittedly, the claimant was on treatment for
11 months. The tribunal found that he was earning
Rs.995/- per month on the basis of Ext.A7. Tribunal also
found that he was under treatment for 11 months and he
was on leave for 11 months, but, only Rs.7,700/- was
granted for 11 months’ leave. He was on leave for 11
months. Compensation payable for loss of earning will be
Rs.10,945/-. After deducting the amount of Rs.7,700/-
granted by the tribunal, balance payable will be
Rs.3,245/- considering the nature of injuries, 11 months’
long treatment undergone by him etc. Even though his
salary as an E.D. postman was not reduced, it has
affected his employment prospects and likelihood of
getting another employment after retirement also was
reduced. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion
M.F.A.No.599/2000 5
that another Rs.10,000/- ought to have been awarded for
disability and loss of earning power. Thus, claimant
will be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.13,245/-.
The above amount of Rs.13,245/- should be deposited by
the third respondent insurance company with 8% interest
from the date of application till its deposit. On
deposit of the amount, appellant is allowed to withdraw
the same.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
K.P.BALACHANDRAN
JUDGE
vaa
M.F.A.No.599/2000 6
J.B. KOSHY AND
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
————————–
M.F.A.NO.599/2000
————————–
JUDGMENT
Dated:10th July, 2007