IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1810 of 2007()
1. AMUTHA @ AMRITHA,W/O. N.GANESAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
... Respondent
2. MOHAMMED MUSTAFA,S/O. MUTHU RAWTHAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
For Respondent :SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :17/08/2009
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A. NO: 1810 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th Day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
K. M. Joseph J.
The appellant is the petitioner in a petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant has
claimed an amount of Rs.7,41,000/- and she was awarded a
total compensation of Rs.2,11,250/- The accident took place on
31.10.1999. The appellant was 30 years of age and she was a
plantation worker.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that the appellant was in hospital for 124 days as inpatient. She
was under gone surgical operations and sustained cervical
M.A.C.A . NO: 1810 OF 2007
:2:
spine injuries. Her disability was assessed at 40%.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would further
contend that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the
appellant at least at Rs.2,250/-. This submission is on the basis
of Ext.A9 certificate, which would indicate that the appellant was
receiving salary and other allowances. This is a case where the
appellant was forced to resign because she cannot move
without assistance, it is submitted. The fact is noted by the
Tribunal, learned counsel points out. According to him, Ext.A9
would also show that the appellant was not able to go for work
for ten months. He further submitted that the appellant should
have been compensated for future medical treatment.
5. Learned counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. supported the
award.
6. The first question to be considered is what is the
income to be taken for calculation of disability compensation.
The Tribunal has taken the disability at 40%. The learned
counsel has no complaint about it. The multiplier is correctly
M.A.C.A . NO: 1810 OF 2007
:3:
applied at 17. There is evidence to show that the appellant was
earning higher income. She was a permanent plantation worker.
This is proved by Ext. A9. Having regard to the year of accident
and also the materials on record, we can safely fix the income
of the appellant at Rs.2,000/- as monthly income. On this basis,
after deducting the amount already awarded, and applying the
same multiplier and disability at 40%, the appellant would be
entitled to an amount of Rs.40,800/- more towards disability
compensation.
7. We find that the appellant is to be compensated for
future treatment. We award an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the
said head. Having regard to the various injuries sustained and
percentage of disability certified, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is
awarded towards loss of amenity. Lastly, we find the appellant
is entitled to enhanced compensation for loss of earning at the
rate of Rs.2,000/- for a period of nine months. The appellant is
awarded Rs.9,000/- more under this head. Thus, the appellant
is awarded an amount of Rs.59,800/- more.
M.A.C.A . NO: 1810 OF 2007
:4:
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is
allowed to realise an amount of Rs.59,800/- (rounded of to
Rs.60,000/-) more along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from
the date of petition till the date of realisation from the
respondents.
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE
dl/