IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 227 of 2003()
1. MIDHUN, S/O.PIOUS VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. ANTU, S/O.DEVASSY, NEELAMGAVIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE THETTAYIL
For Respondent :SRI.JAMES KOSHY.N., SC. KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :12/02/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.227 of 2003
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
R.BASANT, J.
Claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us.
Through his guardian, the minor/claimant aged 7 years, claimed
an amount of Rs.2.34 lakhs as compensation for personal injuries
suffered in a motor accident. The Tribunal awarded an amount
of Rs.61,800/- under various heads and the claimant is aggrieved
by the quantum of compensation awarded.
2. The minor child had suffered fracture of the frontal
bone and dislocation of the hip joint. He was in the hospital for a
period of 25 days. Procedures under general anaesthesia had to
be undergone and the child was put on skin traction. The
claimant child allegedly suffered disability as a result of the
accident and the same was confirmed by the doctor. The
percentage of physical disability was assessed by the doctor at
12% for the limb. The Tribunal reckoned the disability at 7% for
the whole body. The doctor who issued the disability certificate
was examined before court also as PW4. The child had suffered
M.A.C.A. No.227 of 2003 2
retardation in his educational progress, he having been
compelled to remain at home and having lost one year in his
educational career. A certificate to that effect has been
produced also.
3. The Tribunal taking into account all the relevant
circumstances, came to the conclusion that the claimant child is
entitled for an amount of Rs.61,800/- along with interest @ 9%
and cost.
4. Called upon to explain the specific challenge against
the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for
the appellant first of all contends that the Tribunal was not being
reasonable and realistic in not awarding any amount of
compensation for the loss of one year in the educational career
of the child. We are in ready agreement with the learned
counsel for the appellant. Such loss is borne out by the
certificate issued by the school authorities marked as Ext.A15.
We are satisfied that an amount of Rs.12,000/- can safely be
awarded as compensation under this head.
5. Considering the nature of injuries including fracture
of the frontal bone and dislocation of the right hip as also the
period of inpatient treatment and the outpatient treatment which
M.A.C.A. No.227 of 2003 3
followed and the nature of the procedures undergone at the
hospital including reduction under general anaesthesia, we are
satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded under the
head of pain and suffering at Rs.12,000/- is not adequate. We
agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that further
amounts deserve to be awarded under that head. We are
satisfied that a total amount of Rs.15,000/-, ie. Rs.3,000/- more,
can safely be awarded under that head.
6. The learned counsel then contends that the amount of
Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of loss of amenities is too
inadequate and meager. The counsel points out that the
claimant is a 7 year old child and the quality of enjoyment of life
as a child and also in later years would be affected considerably
by the disability of 12% suffered on the right limb even though
the total body disability is reckoned by the Tribunal only at 7%.
In any view of the matter, the amount awarded as compensation
– ie., Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of loss of amenities is
not reasonable, argues the counsel. We find merit in that
contention. We are satisfied that award of an amount of
Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of amenities – ie. Rs.5,000/- more
would be reasonable.
M.A.C.A. No.227 of 2003 4
7. We are not satisfied that any further amount deserves
to be awarded under any other particular head. The Tribunal
had taken notional income at Rs.1,500/- per mensem and had
taken the multiplier at 15, which is the maximum admissible
under the second schedule to the Act. We are further satisfied
that the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded as compensation for
medical expenses incurred, expenses for bystanders and extra
nourishment etc. though only bills covering an amount of
Rs.15,000/- were produced before the Tribunal is also absolutely
justified.
8. The above discussions lead us to the conclusion that
the appellant is entitled to a further amount of Rs.20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty thousand only) as shown above in addition to
the amounts already awarded by the Tribunal along with interest
on the total amount and cost as already awarded.
9. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the
above extent.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON)
rtr/-