IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 102 of 2007()
1. MALLIKA, AGED 60 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. MANOJ KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS,
Vs
1. GEORGE JAMES, S/O.VARKEY,
... Respondent
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
For Respondent :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :23/10/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 102 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 23rdday of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the
Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in OP(MV)
2492/00. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident. Ext.A1
would show that the police had recorded his statement from the
hospital on the next day of the accident. Ext.A2 is the discharge card
issued by the General Hospital, Kozhikode. It would reveal that he
was admitted on 15.9.00 and discharged on 28.9.00. He had
suffered abrasions on the skin and also fracture of the pubic ramus.
He had some problem of vomiting and therefore consulted the Doctor
on 20.10.00. On that day the Doctor attached to the hospital issued
a letter to the neurosurgeon of the Medical College Hospital,
Kozhikode, which is marked as Ext.A3. Ext.A4 is the OP ticket which
directed the blood as well as scan of the original claimant to be
taken. Ext.A5 is the blood report. It is only a blood report and not a
diagnostic report issued by any Doctors. Ext.A6 is the scan report
which does not show any serious involvement of the brain in the
accident. With these documents, the Tribunal granted a
MACA No. 102/07
2
compensation of Rs.3,500/-.
2. I feel the amount awarded by the Tribunal is grossly
inadequate. The original claimant was a poor man and necessarily
he had to depend upon the Government hospital for his treatment.
He was treated as inpatient in the hospital for a period of 14 days
and again revisited the hospital with complaints of vomiting. It is true
that there is no serious ailment as such for the claimant but had
problems on account of the injury sustained in the accident. We do
not find a further clarification of the fracture of the pubic ramus and
when it reaches the Medical College Hospital, more concern was
shown with respect to his suspected oedema on the head. So this is
a case where the original claimant had substantial sufferings and had
undergone treatment. Being a man aged 69, one need not calculate
the compensation on per head basis. But a global compensation
has to be awarded for the nature of injuries sustained by him. I feel a
proper compensation of Rs.12,000/- has to be awarded. Therefore,
the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs.12,000/- out of which
Rs.3,500/- is already awarded. Therefore, the claimant will be
entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,500/-.
MACA No. 102/07
3
In the result, the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is
entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,500/- with 6% interest
on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. The
Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount within a period
of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No. 102/07
4