High Court Kerala High Court

Biju Francis vs Sreejith on 14 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Biju Francis vs Sreejith on 14 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1617 of 2006()


1. BIJU FRANCIS, AGED 24 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SREEJITH, S/O. NARAYANAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. K.V. YESUDAS, S/O. VARGHESE,

3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY, KALPETTA.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.J.ANTONY

                For Respondent  :SRI.LAL GEORGE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :14/07/2009

 O R D E R
                         K. M. JOSEPH &
                M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  M.A.C.A.No. 1617 of 2006
             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
             Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

Joseph, J.

The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No. 465 of

1997, which is a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act.

2. As against the claim of the appellant for an amount of

Rs. 4 Lakhs, Rs.1,62,000/- alone was awarded by the Tribunal.

This appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation

awarded. Since the insurance coverage is admitted by the third

respondent, Insurance Company, we are not issuing notice to

respondents 1 and 2 and the appeal is taken up for hearing on

consent.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant raised two points

before us. He submits that only Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards

M.A.C.A.No. 1617 of 2006

2

pain and sufferings. The counsel submits that this is a case where

the right thumb of the appellant was amputated. The appellant was

in the hospital for four days and the amount awarded is too

meager.

4. Secondly it is contended that as against the claim for loss

of earnings, absolutely no amount was awarded. The appellant

was a Mason. Without the thumb he was disabled from earning.

The counsel took us through the relevant portion of the judgment

and pointed out that the reasoning of the Tribunal is that loss of

earning and earning power are the same. Towards disability an

amount of Rs.1,53,000/- was awarded.

5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports

the award.

6. The first question to be considered is whether the

appellant is entitled to any further amount towards pain and

sufferings. The appellant was in the hospital for four days. The

M.A.C.A.No. 1617 of 2006

3

injury has resulted in amputation of his right thumb. The accident

took place in 1997. We feel that the appellant should be granted

further amounts under the head pain and sufferings. We award

Rs.5,000/- more under the head pain and sufferings.

7. The next question is regarding the loss of earning power.

No doubt, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company pointed

out that the appellant was in the hospital for four days. He also

submitted that there is no medical bills produced. Considering

the vocation of the appellant, we feel that the Tribunal should have

awarded compensation for loss of earnings. The appellant was

examined as PW1 also.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant was not earning for one year and he was undergone

plastic surgery also. We feel that an amount of Rs.6,000/- can be

awarded under the head loss of earnings.

8. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part. The appellant

is allowed to realise an amount of Rs.11,000/- with interest at the

M.A.C.A.No. 1617 of 2006

4

rate of 7.5% from the date of the petition till the date of realisation

from the third respondent.

(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge

tm