IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1221 of 2004(B)
1. MALAYAN CHOLAKKAL SARASWATHI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PANAKKADAN MOHAMMED KUTTY,
... Respondent
2. USMAN, S/O. MOHAMED,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :28/08/2009
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A.No. 1221 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
When this appeal came up in the defect list, we noted
that the defect is only non-service of notice to the second
respondent. The Insurance is admitted. Hence we
proceeded to consider the appeal on consent of the learned
counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company.
2. The appellant made a claim for Rs.5.5 Lakhs. An
amount of Rs.1,94,150/- was awarded by the Tribunal, the
break up details of the same are given below.
Loss of earnings Rs.15,000/-
Transport to hospital Rs. 5,000/-
Extra nourishment Rs. 6,500/-
Bystander's expenses Rs. 6,500/-
M.A.C.A.No. 1221 of 2004
2
Medical expenses Rs. 43,650/-
Disability Rs. 67,500/-
For future treatment Rs. 15,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of marital life Rs. 15,000/-
---------------
Total Rs.1,94,150/-
=========
3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned
counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal ought to
have taken higher income. The appellant was a coolie worker.
According to her, her only child is mentally retarded. The
appellant was in hospital for more than 120 days and her case is
that future medical treatment will be required for her.
4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
supported the award.
5. The first question to be considered is what the income of
the appellant. The accident took place in the year 1998. The
appellant has given evidence. According to her, she was earning
Rs. 125/- per day. We fix her monthly income at Rs.1800/-
M.A.C.A.No. 1221 of 2004
3
instead of Rs.1,250/- p.m. fixed by the Tribunal. On this basis,
the appellant will be entitled to Rs.6,600/- more towards loss of
earnings. On the basis of the increase in the income and by taking
the same multiplier and percentage of disability, the appellant is
entitled to Rs.29,700/- more. We also feel that Rs.5,000/- more
can be awarded towards future medical treatment. Thus, the
appellant will be entitled to a total amount of Rs.40,700/- more.
6. This appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is entitled to
realise a sum of Rs.40,700/- more with interest at the rate of 7.5%
from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from the
third respondent.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm