IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 135 of 2003()
1. KARAI NANU, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A. JAFFER ALI, 4/481,
... Respondent
2. P.K. SURENDRAN, S/O. KUTTAI,
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAN
For Respondent :SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ.
=====================
M.F.A.No.135 of 2003
=====================
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
The appellant sustained injuries in a motor accident on
5.9.1996. He claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The
total amount including the medical expenses awarded by the
Tribunal was only Rs.38,850/- and directed the third respondent –
Insurance Company to deposit the amount. The only dispute is
regarding the quantum of compensation. With regard to the
injuries sustained, the Tribunal considered the medical certificate
and evidence and held as follows:
“Ext.A3, wound certificate, shows that there
was abrasions, tenderness and complaint of pain
back of chest. Ext.A4, admission-discharge
certificate, would indicate that there was fracture
trochanter left and fracture of ribs 8th, 9th, 10th and
14th. He was in the hospital for 26 days for
treatment. Ext.A5 is a discharge slip, which does not
MFA 135/03 -: 2 :-
indicate any further particulars. Ext.A6 is a
prescription and Ext.A7 is a disability certificate
issued by PW2, Dr.Thomas.
10. PW2 Dr.Thomas, testified that when he
examined PW1 for the purpose of issuing the
disability certificate, it was found that the clavicle
was mal-united, varus deformity left hip and difficulty
in squatting and lifting heavy objects. He is unable
to engage in activity in the Bakery as he was doing it
earlier. The Surgeon has assessed the permanent
disability as 18%. The Cross-examination of this
witness would show that the medical records
including the case-sheet, Ext.X1, will not indicate that
there was mal-union of the clavicle. the other
deformity testified by PW2 also does not find a place
in the medical records. From Ext.X1, case-sheet, it is
seen that the fracture of the ribs were united.”
2. Therefore, the Tribunal did not accept the disability
certificate, but for the discomfort, loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life suffered, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/-
as compensation. It is the admitted case that he had suffered
fracture of trochanter left and fracture of ribs 8th, 9th, 10th and
14th. He was in the hospital for 26 days for treatment. Even
though the permanent disability as 18% may not be accepted,
MFA 135/03 -: 3 :-
the Tribunal ought to have assessed the permanent disability
considering the injuries suffered by the appellant that he was
unable to do the manual work as he was doing it earlier, we are
of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have awarded additional
amount of Rs.10,000/- considering the disability. We are of the
opinion that no further enhancement is necessary for other
heads.
3. The Additional amount of Rs.10,000/- should be
deposited by the third respondent – Insurance Company with
7.5% interest from the date of application till its deposit over and
above the amount decreed by the Tribunal. On deposit of the
amount, the appellant is allowed to withdraw the same.
The appeal is partly allowed.
J.B.Koshy,
Judge.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 20/6