IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2006 of 2005()
1. JAMEELA (MINOR) AGED 13 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHALAKKAL GIRISH KUMAR,
... Respondent
2. T.ABDUL AZEEZ, THOTTASSERI HOUSE,
3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA
For Respondent :SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :11/08/2009
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
....................................................................
M.A.C.A. No.2006 of 2005
....................................................................
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Abdul Rehim, J.
The claimant before the Tribunal is in appeal seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded. The appellant sustained
injuries when a van knocked down her while walking through the side
of the public road. She was a student aged 13 years at the time of the
accident. The appellant sustained crush injury below the ankle joint
exposing the tissues and causing fracture of second and third
metatarsals on the right foot, along with aberrations on the back of
right elbow joint. Initially she was treated as inpatient in the hospital
for about 23 days. After more than 4 years she underwent plastic
surgery to mitigate the deformity. The Tribunal had awarded a total
compensation of Rs.86,700/-, out of which the medical expenses
proved by the bills relating to the treatment itself is Rs.58,200/-.
2. Heard, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent-Insurance
2
Company. The appellant contended that inspite of proof regarding
severe disfigurement, the Tribunal had not allowed any amount
towards compensation under the head of permanent disability. It is
also contended that the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards loss of
amenities and enjoyment in life is highly unrealistic. Further
contention is that the amounts awarded under different heads like
transport to hospital, expenses to bystander, extra nourishment etc., are
also on the lower side. It is also contended that the rate of interest
granted by the Tribunal, i.e. 6% p.a., is highly inadequate.
3. On evaluating the evidence, we do not find that any proof has
been adduced regarding continuing permanent disability. But from the
medical certificates it is evident that the appellant had sustained a crush
injury which had resulted in some sort of deformity. Further there is
evidence that she had underwent plastic surgery in this regard. The
claim regarding loss of academic year was not accepted by the Tribunal
due to want of documentary evidence. But we are inclined to hold that
definitely the appellant might have lost considerable period of her
studies. Considering all these aspects we are of the opinion that the
3
total amount of compensation awarded under different heads is on the
lower side. We are persuaded to increase the total amount of
compensation by a further amount of Rs.15,000/-. We are also inclined
to increase rate of interest from 6% to 7.5% p.a.
In the result, appeal is partly allowed enhancing the total
compensation of Rs.86,700/- by a further sum of Rs.15,000/-. The
original amount of compensation as well as the enhancement granted
in this appeal will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of
the claim petition till payment. The third respondent-Insurance
Company is directed to make deposit of the amount within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Judge
pms