IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 206 of 2001()
1. P. SARA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.V. SURESH KUMAR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :25/01/2007
O R D E R
(M.RAMACHANDRAN & S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ)
-------------------------------------------------------------
M.F.A.No.206 of 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran, J:
This is an appeal filed at the instance of a victim of a road
traffic accident. At the time of accident she was travelling in a
vehicle, bearing registration No.KED 5353, which had been
insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited. The
Tribunal had found that the accident was caused because of the
negligent driving of the vehicle and she is to be adequately
compensated. However, in the matter of assessing the disability,
as highlighted in the appeal, perhaps the Tribunal was highly
conservative. The injuries sustained by the appellant, as could
be gatherable from the order, are extracted herein below:
“The injuries allegedly sustained by the
petitioner are lacerated injury 5 x 3 cm
lateral aspect of right eye, fracture right
maxilla, fracture right zygomatic arch,
haemorragic contusion right front parietal
region, cerebral oedema, facial palsy,
haematyn parietal ptosis right eye, fracture
posterea lateral longwall of right antrium,
fracture zygomatic arch right, fracture
lateral orbital bonywall right, fracture frontal
bone right involving the anterior frontal
supra orbital and lateral frontal area,
fracture, greater wind of sphenoid right,
[MFA No.206 of 2001]
-2-
small focal intra cerebral haematoma in the
basal part of the right fonto temporal lobe,
mild sub arachnoid blood at the level of the
right sylvial fisure and sulci in the right
hemisphere, mild cerebral oedema. In order to
prove the injuries the petitioner has given
evidence as P.W1 and Ext.A1 to A10 and X1
marked. PW.1 has given evidence to fact that
she sustained fracture on the right hand and
shoulder. She has also sustained head injury.”
2. The medical attendant had assessed the disability at
20%, which according to the Tribunal, was on the excessive side
and was not acceptable, and according to the Tribunal, 10% would
have been more safe and reasonable.
3. We can hardly agree with the above. Of course, the
learned counsel for the 3rd and 6th respondents submits that being
a house wife and practically she does not earn income, the
compensation awarded was equitable by all standards and the
assessment by the Tribunal in respect of the disablement should
not have been upset in these proceedings. But, as referred to
earlier, the accident has wrecked her person. Compensation for
disfiguration, hospitalisation was inadequate. Disablement as
certified by the doctor should have led to a better and fair
compensation.
4. Taking notice of the totality of the circumstances, we
direct that in the matter of item No.4 of paragraph 9 of the award,
[MFA No.206 of 2001]
-3-
treatment and medical expenses to be awarded should be refixed
at Rs.7,500/-. Compensation figure for disfiguration (item No.5) is
to be substituted as Rs.20,000/-. Compensation for disability (item
No.6) is fixed astRs.40,800/-.
5. Thus, the additional compensation payable, over and
above what has been awarded, should be arrived at Rs.41,400/-.
The interest on this additional amount of compensation will be 6%
from the date of award till realisation.
6. The award in O.P.(MV).No.1849 of 1995 will stand
modified to this extent. The appeal is disposed of as above.
M.RAMACHANDRAN
(JUDGE)
S.SIRI JAGAN
( JUDGE)
mks/
[MFA No.206 of 2001]
-4-
M.RAMACHANDRAN,
&
S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ
———————————————————–
M.F.A.No. 206 of 2001
————————————————————
JUDGMENT
————————————————————-
25th day of January, 2007