IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1704 of 2008()
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MUTTIKKAN ASHRAF, S/O.BAVA, MUTTIKKAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.A.KRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :10/09/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1704 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred by the insurance company
against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Tirur in O.P.(MV)257/06. The claimant, a young man
sustained serious injuries in a road accident as a result of
which there was a traumatic amputation of the right thumb
through the interphalangeal joint. The Tribunal considered
the disability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act
Schedule 1 of para 2 item No.10 and fixed the loss of earning
capacity at 20% and calculated the compensation. It fixed
the income at Rs.3,000/-.
2. The learned counsel for the insurance company
had raised two contentions before me that the accident had
not taken place in public place and that the percentage of
loss of earning capacity fixed by the Tribunal is incorrect. So
far as the question of public place is concerned it has to be
stated that the accident had taken only on a road lying in
M.A.C.A. 1704 OF 2008
-:2:-
between paddy fields which is accessible to all the public and
that is why a lorry was being plied through that road and so
the said contention does not merit consideration.
3. The next question is regarding the loss of earning
capacity. It is true that really better evidence could have
been produced in the form of a certificate from the Doctor
but the very wound certificate would reveal that there was a
traumatic amputation on the right thumb through the inter
interphalangeal joint. Even if the contention of the learned
counsel for the insurance company is taken into
consideration and schedule 1 para 2, 10(a) is complied even
then the loss of earning capacity would come to 10%. If the
income is fixed at Rs.3,000/- and compensation is calculated
by applying a multiplier of 16 for the age it would come to
Rs.57,600/- adding the further compensation it would come
to Rs.32,400/- which would make it Rs.90,000/-. But the
facts would reveal that the phalanges is involved in the
amputation. Further even if it is taken into consideration and
some amount is granted for the loss of amenities and
M.A.C.A. 1704 OF 2008
-:3:-
enjoyment I do not feel that the amount of compensation
awarded as Rs.1,00,000/- is on the higher side. Therefore I
find that the Tribunal has only awarded a just and reasonable
compensation which does not call for any interference.
Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-