High Court Kerala High Court

K.Krishnan vs Ali on 17 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.Krishnan vs Ali on 17 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 604 of 2006(A)


1. K.KRISHNAN, S/O.LATE GOPALAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ALI, S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.C.MUHAMMED, MOONUKUNNU PURAYIL HOUSE,

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY)

                For Respondent  :SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :17/09/2008

 O R D E R
                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
              = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                 M.A.C.A. NO. 604 OF 2006
             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
      Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008.

                       J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad in O.P.(MV)184/03. The

claimant, a 35 year old man, agriculturalist by profession,

sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has

awarded a compensation of Rs.76,300/- with 6% interest.

Dissatisfied with the same he has come in appeal.

2. I had perused the award and heard the learned

counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company.

It can be seen that the claimant had sustained a comminuted

fracture of the right frontal bone involving frontal sinus and

fracture. He had undergone inpatient treatment in the

hospital for 21 days. He had also sustained corresponding

injuries on account of the frontal injury. The tribunal found

that he would have been prevented from doing any work for

six months and awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of

earnings. It had also granted reasonable compensation for

M.A.C.A. 604 OF 2006
-:2:-

bystander’s expenses, extra nourishment and under other

heads. Towards pain and sufferings it awarded Rs.15,000/-.

Learned counsel would contend that the disability certificate

produced would show that he had sustained 40% visual

disability, When 40% loss of vision is taken into

consideration in the light of the schedule to the Workmen’s

Compensation Act, it will cause 10% loss of earning capacity

and precisely that has been taken into account and applying

a proper multiplier of 16, the Tribunal awarded Rs.28,800/-

under that head. Over and above these the Tribunal again

had taken into consideration further loss of earning power

and awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- thereby giving a disability

compensation of Rs.43,800/-. So it has to be held that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is extremely adequate

and just as contemplated under the provisions of the M.V.

Act. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-