IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2395 of 2008()
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VARGHESE P.THOMAS @ ABILASH,
... Respondent
2. MATHEW,S/O.VARGHESE MATHEW,
3. VINOD, S/O.GOPALAN, POOVANKAL VEEDU,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.M.JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :06/11/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
--------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.NO.2395 OF 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Koshy,J.
This appeal is filed by the Insurance company questioning the
award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in
OP(M.V).No.1760/2004. Claimant in that case sustained very
serious injuries in a motor accident on 26.1.2004. He claimed
Rs.10 lakhs as compensation contending that accident occurred
due to the negligence of the driver of the bus insured by the
appellant – Insurance company. Only dispute raised by the
Insurance company is regarding the quantum of compensation.
Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.9,90,200/-. Out of
that, Rs.2,50,000/- was for treatment expenses based on actual
bills. The claimant was only 26 years old at the time of accident.
His right leg was amputated at thigh level, that is, above knee. He
MACA.NO.2395/2008 2
owned a lorry and he was also a driver by profession. To prove
the same, driving licence, badge and disc were produced as
Exts.A8 to A10. So, he was a youngster who owns a lorry and
he was driving the same. As far as the claimant is concerned,
his earning capacity is completely lost. Unlike in 163 A claims,
compensation need not be restricted considering the Schedule in
Workmen’s Compensation claims. The question is what are the
after effects of the accident. As far as the claimant is concerned,
he will not be able to drive the lorry. Accident occurred at the
age of 26. He has to suffer the disability through out his life. In
this connection, we also refer to the decision of this Court in
Jayaprasad v. Rejimon Philip and another (2007 (4) KLT
623)). The Honourable Supreme Court has also held in
Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008 (2)
KLT 995 (SC)) that amputation of leg of a tanker driver will
entail 100% loss of earning capacity. However, we also note
that even if he may be able to do some work by using artificial
leg, it will costs a huge amount and the artificial leg has to be
replaced subsequently. Only Rs.25,000/- was awarded for
MACA.NO.2395/2008 3
artificial leg by the Tribunal and according to the claimant, he is
the owner of Tata 407 mini lorry. Ext.A14 is the copy of the RC
book. According to him, he was getting Rs.6,000/- per month.
When a driver of a lorry himself owns a lorry, he will surely get
more than Rs.200/- to Rs.350/- per day. He claimed Rs.6,000/-
as the monthly income which is not excessive. But Tribunal
calculated compensation only taking Rs.3,000/-. In the above
circumstances, considering the nature of the injuries and total
compensation awarded, we are of the view that no interference
is required in the amount awarded, and hence, this appeal is
dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE
prp