High Court Kerala High Court

Raju vs The Managing Director on 20 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Raju vs The Managing Director on 20 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 239 of 2004()


1. RAJU, KARITHALACKAL VIAL ROADARIKATHU
                      ...  Petitioner
2. INDIRA, AGED 35, W/O.RAJU,
3. RAJESH.R.I., AGED 19, S/O..RAJU,
4. RAJIMOL.I.R., AGED 18, D/O.INDIRA,
5. ANITHA.I.R., AGED 15, D/O.INDIRA,
6. CHITRA.I.R., AGED 13, D/O.INDIRA,

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMILNADU STATE
                       ...       Respondent

2. SREEKUMARAN NAIR, JALAJA BHAVAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

                For Respondent  :SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :20/01/2009

 O R D E R
                 C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                      C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
                 --------------------------------------------
                     M.A.C.A. No. 239 OF 2004
                 --------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair,J.

Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation. We have

heard counsel appearing for the appellants and counsel appearing for

the respondent-Corporation. Appellants 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of

one Mr. Raju, who sustained injuries in a road accident caused by the

bus operated by the first respondent. The accident was on 2.8.2000 and

the injured underwent treatment for minor injuries at the Government

Hospital, Parasala. He was discharged on 15.8.2000 and injuries

sustained are seen trivial in nature. However, the injured died on

6.5.2003 that was after passing of the award. Even though the

deceased while prosecuting claim petition claimed subsequent

treatment in the Medical College Hospital, the MACT did not accept

the same because as those were not attributable to the injuries caused in

the accident. According to legal heirs, the death occurred in 2003 is

2

attributable to the injuries sustained in the accident. Counsel for the

respondent-Corporation submitted that the deceased died of natural

cause and there is no evidence to the contrary. Moreover the injuries

sustained were not serious and that is the reason why he was not taken

to any Medical College Hospital or any big hospital for treatment. We

are in agreement with this argument because no postmortem was done

on the body of the deceased and consequently the cause of death is not

known. Secondly treatment at the Medical College Hospital is more

than one year after the accident and there are no details as to the disease

for which he was treated in the hospital. In these circumstances, the

only inference is that deceased died of some disease or on account of

natural cause which are not attributable to the accident. Therefore the

claim for enhancement of compensation for the death of the injured is

rejected.

2. Even though appellants could not connect the death of the

deceased with the accident, we feel the compensation awarded is very

low because the injured was in the hospital for 13 days as an impatient.

Therefore abrasions and lacerations sustained are more serious in

3

nature than they appeared to be. Therefore injured would have suffered

pain and would have been disabled to work for some time. We

therefore enhance the total compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.

25,000/- with direction to the first respondent to deposit the additional

compensation granted by us with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum

from the date of application till date of deposit.

Appeal stands allowed to the above extent.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

(C.K. ABDUL REHIM)
Judge.

kk

4