IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1024 of 2005()
1. RAJENDRAN, S/O.MASILLAMANI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :09/02/2009
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The claimant before the Tribunal had preferred this
appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the original
appellant expired and additional appellants 2 to 4 being the
legal heirs of the deceased appellant have come on record.
The appeal is directed against the amount awarded to the
original appellant by the Tribunal for the loss suffered by him
in a motor accident. The appellant expired on 26/11/06 during
the pendency of this appeal, it is submitted.
2. There is no dispute now about the accident or the
injury suffered. The claimant was a tailor, it was contended.
An amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed as compensation. In
fact, the claim was limited to Rs.1,50,000/- though the actual
M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 -: 2 :-
loss suffered exceeded Rs.1.95 lakhs as averred in the petition.
The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.82,350/- as
compensation. According to the appellants, the amount
awarded is totally insufficient. The deceased/1st appellant had
suffered serious injuries and had undergone three spells of
hospitalisation from 22/3/98 to 10/4/98; 13/4/98 to 21/4/98 and
23/6/98 to 1/7/98 as per the treatment records produced. The
disability was assessed at 25%. One of the kidneys of the
deceased/1st appellant had to be removed as a result of the injury
suffered. The percentage of disability was assessed at 25%
under Ext.A15. But the Tribunal reckoned only 20% as the
reduction in earning. For loss of amenities of life compensation
was awarded only at Rs.15,000/-.
3. The appellants assail the impugned award on various
grounds. First of all it is contended that though the appellant
had been undergoing hospitalisation in three spells from 22/3/98
to 1/7/98, no satisfactory amount has been awarded towards
medical expenses. We note that for incidental and medical
expenses an amount of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded. The
M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 -: 3 :-
learned counsel submits that this is grossly inadequate
considering the nature of injuries and the period of
hospitalisation. The learned counsel mainly attacks the amount
of compensation awarded under the head of disability and loss of
amenities. According to the learned counsel for the appellants,
reckoning of the multiplicand at Rs.1,500/- per mensem is totally
unacceptable. Similarly, it is contended that there was
unjustified reduction of the percentage of disability from 25% to
20%. The deceased/1st appellant was a tailor and that can be
discerned from Ext.A15 disability certificate. The same is also
revealed from the oral evidence of P.W.1. The learned counsel
further contends that the injuries suffered had impaired the
quality of enjoyment of life. The appellant expired prematurely
on 26/11/06. In these circumstances, the amount of
compensation awarded for reduction in earning and loss of
amenities of life must be enhanced, it is urged.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has also been
heard. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that
there was no convincing and acceptable evidence about the age,
M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 -: 4 :-
employment and income of the 1st claimant. It is, in these
circumstances, that the Tribunal reckoned Rs.1,500/- as monthly
income.
5. We have rendered our anxious consideration to all the
relevant inputs. We find merit in the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant. Though there was no specific
materials to show the actual quantum of expenses incurred for
the medical treatment, reasonable inferences could certainly
have been drawn going by the nature of injuries suffered, the
procedures undergone and the period of hospitalisation. In
three spells the appellant/injured underwent treatment as an
inpatient. One kidney had to be removed. He was in the
hospital for a period of exceeding 38 days in three spells. We
are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the amount of
Rs.2,000/- awarded as compensation for medical and incidental
expenses is not sufficient and a total amount of Rs.5,000/- can be
awarded under this head.
6. Similarly, we agree with the learned counsel for the
appellant that the deceased who was a tailor must at least have
M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 -: 5 :-
been earning an income of Rs.2,000/- per mensem. The fact that
he was a tailor and the further fact that the additional appellants
– wife and children were in all, were depending on such income
in addition to the deceased/injured can also be taken into
consideration. We agree that an amount of Rs.2,000/- can safely
be reckoned as monthly income of the injured/claimant.
Similarly, while computing the compensation for loss of
amenities, we must take note of the fact that one kidney had to
be removed. The impact of this consequence on the health and
life expectancy of the injured/claimant must also be taken into
account. We are satisfied that under the head of loss of
amenities an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be awarded.
7. On the basis of the above discussions, we come to the
conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the following further
amount by way of compensation:
(i) Medical expenses – Rs.5,000/- (instead of
Rs.2,000/-
awarded)
(ii) Reduction in earnings
consequent to the disability – Rs.13,200/-
(Rs.2,000/- x 12 x 11 x 20/100
– Rs.52,800/- -minus Rs.39,600/-)
M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 -: 6 :-
(iii) Loss of amenities – Rs.25,000/- (instead of
Rs.15,000/-
awarded)
8. In the result:
(a) This appeal is allowed.
(b) The impugned award is modified and the appellants
are awarded the further amount of Rs.26,200/- in addition to the
amount already awarded as per the impugned award.
9. The interest, cost etc., shall be payable on the modified
amount awarded hereby.
R. BASANT
(Judge)
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
(Judge)
Nan/
M.A.C.A. No. 1024 of 2005 -: 7 :-