High Court Kerala High Court

Krishnakumar vs Babu Thomas on 27 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Krishnakumar vs Babu Thomas on 27 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 215 of 2005()


1. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BABU THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. M.O.THOMAS, S/O. OUSEPH,

3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ

                For Respondent  :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

 Dated :27/01/2011

 O R D E R
                     PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
                    N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
              -----------------------------------------------
                     M.A.C.A.No. 215 of 2005
              -----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011.

                          J U D G M E N T

Balakrishnan, J.

The claimant in O.P.(M.V) No. 1617/97, M.A.C.T.,

Ernakulam is the appellant. It is alleged that he sustained

injury in a motor accident which took place on 10.6.97.

Copy of the wound certificate made available by the learned

counsel for the appellant shows that the appellant had

sustained only an abrasion with soft tissue loss on right

parietal region, laceration on left supra clavicular region,

(sutured), bruising/abrasion/contusion on right shoulder.

The appellant contends that he was treated as an inpatient

from 10.6.97 to 12.6.97. The learned counsel submits that

the doctor certified that he has got disability also. But going

through the injuries, it can be seen that no such disability

M.A.C.A.215/05 2

could be caused to the appellant due to the injuries

sustained in the accident. The disability certificate alleged

to have been issued by a private doctor was not proved by

examining that doctor. It is also contended that the

appellant had spent more than Rs.2,279.65 for the treatment

in the hospital. We are not impressed by the argument

advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant since the

appellant had sustained only very minor injuries as noted in

the wound certificate.

2. Without showing the amount payable as

compensation towards medical expense, pain and suffering,

loss of earning etc. lump sum amount of Rs. 5,000/- was

awarded by the learned MACT. It appears that the learned

Tribunal did not show the amount payable on each head

because the injuries sustained in the accident were very

minor. We have gone through the reasoning given by the

learned Tribunal. Considering the fact that the injuries

M.A.C.A.215/05 3

sustained in the accident was only very minor, we find that

the amount of compensation already awarded is just and

reasonable and as such this appeal is only to be dismissed.

Hence dismissed.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

rka