IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 345 of 2007()
1. KARTHIKEYAN, S/O. KUNJAYYAPPAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SHANMUGHAN V.K.,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent :SMT.SARAH SALVY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :16/06/2009
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. NO. 345 OF 2007 A
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
Appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He is dissatisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also
the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent,
Insurance Company.
3. The appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.78,826/= with
interest at 6 per cent. Learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the income is erroneously taken as Rs.1,500/= per month
and the accident took place in the year 2000. Appellant was a
milk vendor and it is submitted that he was maintaining a
family. He has given oral evidence also. Learned counsel
further contends that in arriving at the disability, the tribunal
MACA.345/07 2
should have taken permanent disability at 25 per cent. In this
regard he relies of a Certificate issued by the Doctor. This
Certificate was issued on 1.5.2001. The tribunal found that
when the Doctor examined the appellant on 12.8.2005, he
assessed only 12 per cent permanent disability. It was
thereupon,. after taking note of the injuries sustained and the
period of treatment undergone and the functional disability
caused to him that the tribunal arrived at the finding that the
appellant suffered 12 per cent permanent disability. It was
accordingly that compensation for disability was arrived at
Rs.17,280/=. Counsel for the appellant further points out that
the appellant has incurred expenses towards transport for
availing treatment three times. Appellant was awarded only
Rs.500/=. He submits that towards pain and suffering, the
appellant was awarded only Rs.12,000/=.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company
MACA.345/07 3
would support the Award. Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties, we feel that the appellant should be entitled to
enhancement in compensation. We notice that the accident took
place in the year 2000. Appellant was aged 58 years and he was
maintaining a family, and having regard to the fact that he has
also given evidence, we can safely take the income of the
appellant at Rs.2,000/= per month. If that be so, the appellant
would be entitled to Rs.5,760/= more towards disability which is
rounded off to Rs.6,000/=. We feel that the appellant should also
be awarded Rs.1,000/= more towards transportation. Further,
having regard to the fact that the appellant was in hospital for 47
days and had suffered three major fractures, for pain and
suffering, the appellant should be awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/=
more. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and the
appellant is allowed to realise Rs.10,000/= more with interest at
7.5 per cent from the date of the petition till the date of
realisation from the respondents. There will be a direction
MACA.345/07 4
against the second respondent to deposit the aforesaid amount
within one month from today and the appellant is allowed to
withdraw the amount. The second respondent is allowed to
recover the amount from the first respondent.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge