Loading...

Leelarajan vs Radhakrishnan on 14 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Leelarajan vs Radhakrishnan on 14 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 843 of 2006()


1. LEELARAJAN, W/O. RAJAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. BALA KRISHNAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. BENNY, S/O. VARGHESE,

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.RAJAN P KALLIYATH(B/O)

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

 Dated :14/01/2010

 O R D E R
                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                 ...........................................
                   M.A.C.A.No.843 OF 2006
                 .............................................
           Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010.

                        J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in OP(MV)No.3464/2001. The

claimant, a 50 year old lady, sustained injuries in a road

accident and she has been awarded a compensation of

Rs.30,500/=. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant has

come up in appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well

as the insurance company. A perusal of the award would

make it clear that the claimant had sustained compound

dislocation proximal I.P joint and toe, fracture proxmal

phalanx third toe of right foot and fracture of the nasal

bone. She was subjected to wound debridement and

suturing also was done. She was also under plaster cast. She

was treated in Aswini Hospital, Thrissur and Elite Mission

Hospital, Koorkkanchery and initially inpatient treatment

was done for a period of 3 days. On this basis, the Tribunal

started assessing the compensation. The Tribunal did not

accept the disability certificate of 6% holding that neither

: 2 :
M.A.C.A.No.843 OF 2006

the claimant nor any person had been examined before the

court. But the Tribunal by its experience approximately

assessed the disability at 2% and awarded compensation for

loss of amenities and enjoyment.

3. I feel the following entitlement also can be given

to the claimant. When 2% is the disability and Rs.1,500/=

is the income, by applying the multiplier of 13 as reported

in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 AC

1298), the disability compensation would come to Rs.4,680/=.

Over and above this, Rs.5,000/= can be awarded for loss of

amenities considering the age, nature of the fracture and

also the factum that she is a house wife. I do not want to

disturb the finding of compensation for discomfiture by

Rs.2,000/= thereby making a total of Rs.11,680/= of which

Rs.8,000/= is awarded and therefore the claimant will be

entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.3,680/= under

that head. The Tribunal has only awarded Rs.7,000/=

towards compensation for pain and sufferings. Considering

the nature of the fracture, dislocation, fracture of the nasal

bone and other circumstances, I am inclined to enhance

: 3 :
M.A.C.A.No.843 OF 2006

that compensation by Rs. 3,000/= making it a total of

Rs.6,680/=.

Therefore, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant

is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.6,680/= with

7% interest. The United India Insurance Company is directed

to deposit the said amount within a period of 60 days from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE

cl

: 4 :
M.A.C.A.No.843 OF 2006

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information