IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 260 of 2008()
1. KUNJUMON.T.K.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.P.THOMAS, S/O.PAILY,
... Respondent
2. SIJI VARGHESE, NIRAVATH HOUSE,
3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL
For Respondent :SRI.M.A.GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :22/12/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
MACA No. 260 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated, this the 22nd day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
P.R.Raman, J
The appellant is the injured. He was a loading and unloading
worker. While loading timber into a lorry, the driver of the lorry moved
the vehicle abruptly resulting in the accident. The appellant sustained
grave injury. Both the driver and and owner of the lorry remained ex-
parte. Further the charge against the driver for offence under Section
279 and 338 of IPC ended in conviction of the driver pleaded guilty.
Further the Insurance Company also conceded the accident and
negligence on the part of the respondent/driver and liable to be
compensated.
2. The appellant/claimant claimed a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- by
way of compensation under different heads. The Tribunal after
evaluating the evidence available on record, awarded a sum of
Rs.2,64,200/- with interest at the rate of 9 = % per annum from the date
of the petition till realisation.
3. Inter alia contending that the compensation awarded is in
adequate and claiming more, this appeal has been preferred.
4. There is no doubt that the injuries sustained by the
MACA No. 260 of 2008
2
appellant is so grave. But the Tribunal accepting the disability certificate
issued by the Medical Board in spite of the fact that the Doctor examined to
prove the certificate was only having 3 = years of experience. Still it
preferred to accept the certificate and awarded a compensation for
disability taking the percentage of disability certified in Ext.A13. A sum of
Rs.93,600/- was thus awarded as compensation for loss of earning power
and permanent disability. Though the appellant would contend that the
income fixed at the rate Rs.3,500/- is on the lower side. Considering the
fact that the appellant did not mount the box and further the certificate
issued by the Union in which he is a member only show his income as
Rs.250/- per day for a total 150 days in a Calendar year and on working out
the average wages, his monthly salary was not more than Rs.2,500/- per
month. Nobody is examined to prove the certificate. In the circumstances, a
marginal reduction is made and the Tribunal fixed his income as Rs.2,500/-.
The disability compensation worked out taking 13 as the multiplier inspite of
the fact that the appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove his age.
Thus it can be seen that the Tribunal was considerate in the matter of
awarding just compensation under this head. We do not find any
interference is called for. Towards the pain and suffering a sum of
Rs.25,000/- is awarded. An amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the loss of
amenities besides a further sum of Rs.15,000/- is also awarded towards
disfiguration. Though it is contended that no compensation is awarded
towards future medical treatment, the Tribunal has considered this aspect
MACA No. 260 of 2008
3
and included this also while awarding compensation for disfiguration
however we think the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant as
evidenced by Ext.A15 shows that he required for the medical treatment.
Thus deserves to be compensated. Accordingly an amount of Rs.10,000/-
is awarded. All other amounts awarded under different heads are adequate
and do not call for any interference.
5. We find that the Tribunal was awarded interest at the rate of
9= % from the date of the Award is not correct or sustainable. Though the
rate of interest at 9= % which is on the higher side, the period for which
interest is awarded is from the date of Award. Normally the compensation
should carry interest from the date of petition till realisation and the normal
rate of interest during this period is only 7%. Accordingly we direct that
entire compensation as awarded by the Tribunal together with a sum of
Rs.10,000/- as awarded by us by way of additional compensation will carry
interest at the rate of 7% from the date of petition till realisation. The
amount as awarded above will be deposited before the Tribunal within six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by the Insurance
Company.
P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
dnc