IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 383 of 2003(C)
1. PRAKASAN, S/O.KUTTAN, MATTATHIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REJI @ OUSEPH, S/O.MATHEW, KOLLAM
... Respondent
2. V.M.JOSE, S/O.MATHAI, VELAMPARAMBIL,
3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BAKER
4. RAVEENDRAN E.K., EAZHA PARAMBIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.PREMOD
For Respondent :SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :08/12/2009
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AND C.K.ABDUL REHIM. J.J
------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.383 of 2003
------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
C.K.Abdul Rehim.J
1. Claimant in O.P.M.V.No.2014/1997 on the files of the
MACT, Kottayam is the appellant. The appeal is filed seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded. The accident
occurred when an Autorickshaw in which the appellant was
traveling collided with another Autorickshaw. The appellant
sustained fracture and dislocation of left ankle joint, fracture of
tarsal and metatarsal bones, due to the crush injuries sustained
on the left leg. There was severe vascular impairment and bone
loss which necessitated below knee amputation of left leg.
2. The appellant was working as a ‘Gardener’ in a
Nursery and claims to have been earning monthly income of
Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only). He was at the age of
37 years at the time of accident. Medical Board had issued
Ext.A13 Disability Certificate assessing the extent of permanent
M.A.C.A.No.383 of 2003
2
disability at 40%. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of
Rs.2,47,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand and
Five Hundred only). For computation of permanent disability,
the tribunal adopted monthly income at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees
Two Thousand only) and multiplier of 15.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
standing counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company.
Contention of the appellant is that the income adopted by the
Tribunal is highly unrealistic and inadequate. It is further
contended that amounts awarded under other heads are also
on the lower side. The learned counsel also contended that
inspite of evidence regarding amputatin of one of the limbs, the
Tribunal has not awarded any amount considering the
requirement for frequent change of artificial limb and towards
expenses for future care and treatment.
4. On an anxious consideration of the impugned
award and also the evidence on record, we feel that the
Tribunal had awarded reasonable amount under different
M.A.C.A.No.383 of 2003
3
heads. However we are persuaded to increase compensation
under the head of permanent disability adopting monthly
income of the appellant at Rs.2,500/-.Calculated on this basis,
compensation under the head of permanent disability need to
be refixed at Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Eighty
Thousand only) [ Rs.2,500/- X 12 X 15 X 40%]This will entitle
the appellant for an enhancement of Rs.36,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Six Thousand only) [Rs.1,80,000 – Rs.144,000/-]. We are
inclined to allow a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand only) towards requirement for the change of artificial
limb and expenses for future care and treatment. Thus the total
compensation need to be increased by a sum of Rs.51,000/-
(Rupees Fifty One Thousand only) [Rs.36,000/- + Rs.15,000/-].
5. In the result the appeal is partly allowed enhancing
the total compensation of Rs.2,47,500/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) awarded by the
Tribunal by a further sum of Rs.51,000/- (Rupees Fifty One
Thousand only) which will carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum
M.A.C.A.No.383 of 2003
4
from the date of the claim petition till payment. The third
respondent Insurance Company is directed to make payment of
the amount within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt
of this judgment.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
ssn