IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1233 of 2006()
1. SEENA ABRAHAM, W/O. P.J. ABRAHAM JOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.I. THOMAS, THAIKKATTIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. MANOHAR BABU, KARAYIL HOUSE,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :11/01/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No.1233 of 2006
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of January 2010
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
Claimant is the appellant. She claimed compensation for
injuries suffered in a motor accident. The Tribunal on an anxious
consideration of all the relevant inputs awarded a total amount
of Rs.75,500/- as compensation as per the details shown below:
i) Transport to hospital : Rs. 500.00
ii) Damage to clothings : Rs. 500.00
iii) Extra nourishment : Rs. 1,000.00
iv) Attendant expenses : Rs. 1,000.00
v) Treatment expenses : Rs.42,000.00
vi) Loss of earnings : Rs. 4,500.00
vii) Pain and suffering : Rs.18,000.00
viii) Loss of amenities : Rs. 8,000.00
.......................
Total : Rs.75,500.00
........................
2. The appellant/claimant claims to be aggrieved by the
impugned award. What is the grievance? The main grievance
M.A.C.A No.1233 of 2006 2
urged is that the Tribunal has erred grossly in reckoning the
monthly income at Rs.1,500/- only. She was allegedly running a
telephone booth and a photostat copier activity. According to
her, her monthly income was Rs.5,000/-. No better evidence was
placed before the court. The Tribunal accepted Rs.1,500/- as
monthly income. She was an inpatient for 25 days. Both bones
of the right forearm were fractured. She was in plaster for a
period of 3 months. In these circumstances, the counsel argues
that both monthly income and the period of involuntary
unemployment have not been correctly taken into reckoning.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the insurance company. We have considered the amounts
awarded under the impugned award under the other heads as
also the interest awarded. Taking all the relevant circumstances
into account, we are satisfied that the appellant/claimant can
safely be held to have suffered involuntary non employment for a
period of 6 months consequent to the injury suffered by her. We
are further satisfied that even in the absence of better evidence,
it was safe to assume that the appellant must have been earning
an income of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. In these circumstances,
M.A.C.A No.1233 of 2006 3
under the head `loss of earnings’, she is fund to be entitled to an
amount of Rs.12,000/- (6 X 2000) as compensation. Deducting
the amount of Rs.4,500/- already awarded, the claimant is thus
found to be entitled to a further amount of Rs.7,500/- under the
head of loss of earnings. She is found to be not entitled for any
further amount under any other head. Even though there is a
contention that she had suffered disability, there is absolutely no
material placed before Court to show that the injuries have
resulted in such disability and consequent reduction in earning
capacity. We take note of the fact that the Tribunal had already
awarded an amount of Rs.18,000/- under the head of `pain and
suffering’ and the amount of Rs.8,000/- under the head of `loss of
earning’. We also take note that the Tribunal has awarded 9%
interest from the date of petition also. There is no appeal by the
insurance company and we are not persuaded to agree that the
rate of interest deserves to be modified in this appeal.
4. In the result:
a) This appeal is allowed in part;
b) The impugned award is upheld in all other respects.
But it is held that the the appellant/claimant is entitled to a
M.A.C.A No.1233 of 2006 4
further amount of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand and five
hundred only) under the head `loss of earnings’. The amount
shall carry interest from the date of the petition at the same rate
as awarded by the Tribunal.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/-
M.A.C.A No.1233 of 2006 5
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
————————————
C.M.Appl.No.1352 of 2006 in
M.A.C.A No.1233 of 2006
————————————-
Dated this the 11th day of January 2010
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
The learned counsel for the Insurance company, ie. the 3rd
respondent submits that the liability of the insurer is not
disputed. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to wait for
issue and return of notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Death of
respondent No.2 is recorded. No further steps regarding
respondents 1 and 2 is necessary. The matter is held to be not
defective.
M.A.C.A No.1233 of 2006 6
2. This petition is to condone the delay of 71 days in
filing an Appeal. We are satisfied that a lenient view can be
taken and the delay can be condoned.
2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/-
M.A.C.A No.1233 of 2006 7
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
————————————
C.M.Appl.No.1352 of 2006 &
M.A.C.A No.1233 of 2006
————————————-
Dated this the 11th day of January 2010
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
The learned counsel for the Insurance company, ie. the 3rd
respondent submits that the liability of the insurer is not
disputed. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to wait for
issue and return of notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Death of
respondent No.2 is recorded. No further steps regarding
respondents 1 and 2 is necessary. The matter is held to be not
defective.
2. C.M.Application No.1352 of 2006 is to condone the
delay of 71 days in filing an Appeal. We are satisfied that a
lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned.
3. Petition allowed. Delay condoned.
M.A.C.A No.1233 of 2006 8
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/-