IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2141 of 2006()
1. JAMES ABRAHAM, URAVUMKARA HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREEDHARAN, ARAKKATHAZHATHU HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. SUNNY ABRAHAM, THOTTICHIRAYIL HOUSE,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent :SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :04/12/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
--------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.2141 of 2006
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Thomas P.Joseph, J.
Appellant claimed compensation to the tune of Rupees Two lakhs
alleging that on 26.3.1998 while he was travelling in the bus driven by the first
respondent, it lost control due to the rashness and negligence of the first
respondent, capsized and that resulted in serious injuries to him. Tribunal found
that the accident occurred as alleged by the appellant and awarded
compensation of Rs.27,886/- to be realised from the respondents with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation.
2. Heard counsel for the appellant and contesting respondent.
3. Point for consideration is whether appellant is entitled to get
enhanced compensation.
4. The Point.
Ext.A13 is the copy of wound certificate and Ext.A9, copy of the discharge
card issued from the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Evidence produced by
the appellant revealed that he suffered lacerated wound 10×5 cm. on the
MACA No.2141/2006
2
posterior aspect of elbow exposing the bone. There was triceps avulsion right
side which was treated by repairs and AE slab on the elbow. It is contended
by the learned counsel for appellant that the compensation awarded to the
appellant is meagre.
5. Appellant, at the time of accident was working on contract basis
with Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam as field officer. According to him, he
was earning at the rate of Rs.3,800/- per month and produced Ext.A16,
certificate issued by the Executive Director of Gramaswaraj Extension Project,
School of Gandhian Thought and Development Studies, Mahatma Gandhi
University. Tribunal accepted Ext.A16 and found the monthly income of the
appellant as Rs.3,800/-. There is no scope for interference with that finding.
6. Ext.A10 is the disability certificate produced by the appellant to
show that injury suffered by him has resulted in disability and consequent loss of
earning power. In Ext.A10, permanent disability recommended is 8%.
Tribunal was not inclined to accept Ext.A10 for the reason that the Medical
Officer who issued Ext.A10 was not examined and that the injury suffered by the
appellant will not cause any permanent disability as claimed by the appellant.
Tribunal however, was of the view that the injury may affect the enjoyment of
amenities of life and hence awarded Rs.10,000/-. According to the appellant, he
is entitled to get compensation for disability and loss of earning power as well. It
is also contended that compensation awarded for pain and suffering is meagre.
MACA No.2141/2006
3
7. We have stated the injuries suffered by the appellant. Though, it
was only a lacerated wound, it is seen from Ext.A13 that it was extensive in
nature and deep enough to expose the bone. There was triceps avulsion which
was treated with repairs and AE slab on the elbow. Appellant had to be inpatient
in the hospital for some time, followed by outpatient treatment. Apparently,
appellant had to undergo severe pain and suffering. Tribunal has awarded
Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the nature of the injuries
and the period of treatment, we are inclined to award a further sum of Rs.5,000/-
on the head of pain and suffering.
8. So far as disability is concerned, though Ext.A10 as such was not
accepted, Tribunal noticed the possible difficulties that could arise from the
injuries suffered by the appellant. Exts.A18 to A21 show that appellant has
secured Master Degree, Ph. D. and Doctorate Degree in various subjects. At
the relevant time, he was working as filed officer on contract basis. Work of field
officer required the appellant going to the field and engaging himself in field
work, rather than engaging in office work for the full time. Injury involved the
muscles of the elbow and it even exposed the bone. There is the possibility of
appellant having stiffness of the muscles on account of the injuries suffered.
That will affect his capacity to work as filed officer. Taking these aspects into
account, we are inclined to award Rs.10,000/- as compensation for discomfort
and inconvenience arising from the injury suffered.
MACA No.2141/2006
4
9. Though counsel requested us to interfere with the compensation
awarded on other counts as well, on giving an anxious consideration of that
request and considering the amount awarded on those counts and also
considering all other relevant factors, we are not persuaded to accept that
request as we are satisfied that compensation awarded on those counts are
just and fair. Thus the additional compensation payable to the appellant is
Rs.15,000/-. Appellant will get interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of application till realization.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in part. Over and above the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellant is allowed to realize a further
sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with 7.5% interest per
annum from the date of application till realization from respondents 1 to 3, jointly
and severally. Third respondent being the insurer of the vehicle is directed to
deposit the said amount in the Tribunal. On such deposit, appellant is permitted
to withdraw the same.
J.B.KOSHY,
JUDGE.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
JUDGE.
cks