IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1969 of 2006()
1. P.P.RAVI, AGED 48 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.SHIVADAS, S/O.CANDUKUTTY,
... Respondent
2. UNNIKRISHNAN T.V.,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.S.ARUN RAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :13/08/2009
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A. NO: 1969 OF 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th Day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
K. M. Joseph J.
The appellant is the claimant in a petition filed under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant claimed
compensation of Rs.4 lakhs and he is awarded Rs.1,09,000/-
(rounded of figure). Aggrieved by the adequacy of compensation
awarded, this petition is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the
appellant is working as an Assistant in Life Insurance Corporation
of India. He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,017/-. He has
produced his salary certificate as Ext.A10. However, in calculating
the disability of compensation, the Tribunal has taken only
M.A.C.A . NO: 1969 OF 2006
:2:
Rs.1,500/- as his monthly income. Further, it is complained that the
Tribunal without any reason has fixed the disability at 5%. By
Ext.A13 the disability of the appellant has been fixed at 12%. It is
further pointed out that only Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards pain
and suffering. Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.
Rs.5,000/- awarded only towards disfigurement.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the award.
5. The first question to be considered is what is the income
and what is the percentage of disability to be considered for
calculating the disability. The appellant is employed with Life
Insurance Corporation of India and drawing monthly salary with
other allowances. The disability, if at all, will arise after retirement.
In such circumstances the multiplier to be taken is 8. We feel that,
in the nature of the employment in which the appellant is engaged,
we can accept as Rs.2,500/- per month as the income. It is true that
the Tribunal has given some reason for reducing the percentage of
disability from 12% to 5%. The Tribunal in particular opines that
M.A.C.A . NO: 1969 OF 2006
:3:
the occupational disability of the appellant is not assessed. PW2 is
the doctor who examined the appellant. He would say that the
appellant has difficulty in alighting, driving and speaking etc. The
index finger has partial anklyon at MCP joint, middle and ring
finger right hand. It is not specified as to whether it is proximal
or distial. Nonetheless there is a medical certificate issued by
Medical Board. The certificate would show that the appellant
was having partial ankylosis right wrist, 10 degree short of full
extension and 30 degree terminal limitation of flexion. Partial
anklyon at MCP joint of index finger. No doubt the wound scar
may not affect the earning capacity as such. On this basis, the
disability can be fixed at 8% instead of 5%. The appellant
would be entitled to a sum of Rs.19,200/- in place of
Rs.12,000/- awarded. Thus the appellant is entitled to
Rs.7,200/- more under the said head.
6. The appellant was in hospital for 59 days. According
M.A.C.A . NO: 1969 OF 2006
:4:
to the appellant, he underwent 4 surgeries. We feel that in the
nature of the injuries and also the treatment he underwent, the
appellant should have been awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-
towards pain and suffering. We also feel that in the nature of
injuries and the after effects of the incident, the appellant should
be awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. The
appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.22,200/- more.
Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the appellant is
allowed to realise a sum of Rs.22,200/- more along with interest
at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of
realisation from the third respondent.
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE
dl/
