IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1583 of 2006()
1. JOSEPH, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 67 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VARGHESE, KATTIPARAMBU HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. K.V.THAMPY,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
4. VINAYAKAN, MANIVELIPARAMBU HOUSE,
5. MRS.OMANA SETHU,
6. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.JOSHI
For Respondent :SRI.SAJAN MANNALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :13/08/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1583 OF 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)1831/01.
The claimant, a 67 year old man sustained injuries in a road
accident. It is seen that he had a fracture on the tibia and
fibula with dislocation of the ankle. The treatment records
would show that he was in Gowtham Hospital as an inpatient
from 10.4.01 to 22.5.01(42 days) and again from 14.1.02 to
16.1.02 and as an inpatient in the Lourdes Hospital from
18.2.2002 to 25.2.2002. It is also seen that he was treated
as an inpatient from 6.8.01 for three days. These things are
very clear to the effect that he had undergone prolonged
treatment for his ailment. It is also seen that he was treated
as an inpatient in the Medical College Hospital for a period of
eight days. The documents also reveal that he had a non-
union of the fracture of the fibula and grafting has to be done
and implant has to be removed. He had almost spent about
M.A.C.A. 1583 OF 2006
-:2:-
Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. Learned counsel
also would contend that the Tribunal did not grant
reasonable compensation for permanent disability as well for
actual loss of earnings and towards bystander’s and other
expenses. It is seen that only an amount of Rs.500/- is
granted for attendant expenses whereas he had been
inpatient in different hospitals for a period of about 62 days.
So at least an amount of Rs.3,000/- has to be awarded
under that head and after deducting Rs.500/- already
granted, the claimant is to be granted an additional amount
of Rs.2,500/- under that head. So far as the permanent
disability compensation, loss of amenities etc. are concerned,
the principle is that a reasonable compensation has to be
granted but one should not overlap over the other and there
should not be double benefit. So, ordinarily, when permanent
disability compensation is calculated a further sum at least of
a nominal nature is granted towards loss of amenities and
enjoyment in life. Here the Tribunal did not consider him as a
man earning and therefore awarded Rs.10,000/-for loss of
M.A.C.A. 1583 OF 2006
-:3:-
amenities and Rs.5,000/- for permanent disability. The
learned counsel would submit that the first information
statement itself would reveal that he was a coconut business
man. It is true that he was aged 67 years. He may not be
able to do heavy physical work at that age. But at least a
notional income has to be taken in such cases. Therefore
fixing the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and
accepting the disability at 15% calculated by the Medical
Board and applying a multiplier of 5, the disability
compensation would come to Rs.12,250/- when such an
amount is granted I feel the loss of amenities can be limited
to Rs.7,000/-. The total amount granted by the Tribunal
under these two heads is Rs.15,000/- whereas the claimant
is entitled to an amount of Rs.19,250/-. Therefore the
claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of
Rs.4,250/- under that head. At least loss of earnings for six
months have to be granted and it would come to Rs.7,500/-
for which the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3,000/-. So the
claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of
M.A.C.A. 1583 OF 2006
-:4:-
Rs.4,500/- under that head. Or in other words the additional
compensation the claimant is entitled to will be Rs.11,250/-.
In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the
claimant is awarded an additional compensation of
Rs.11,250/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date
of petition till realisation and the insurance company is directed
to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the
date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-