IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 799 of 2007()
1. SUNIL KUMAR, ANJANA HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.C.JOSEPH, KIZHAKKEMATTOM HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :20/08/2009
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A. NO: 799 OF2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th Day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
K. M. Joseph J.
The appellant is the petitioner in a petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the
adequacy in quantum of compensation awarded, he had filed
this appeal.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance Company.
3. The injuries allegedly suffered by the appellant are as
follows:
“Comminuted fracture right femur, head injury,
subdural haematoma, frontal contusion, post
traumatic bitemperal hemiunopia, fracture
fibula, lacerated wound scalp, lacerated wound
M.A.C.A . NO: 799 OF 2007
:2:chin, frontal bone fracture, extra dural
haematoma, and considerable loss of vision due
to damage of opthalmic nerve.”
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would essentially
raise three issues before us. Firstly, he would contend that the
Tribunal has awarded only Rs.55,000/- towards disability. The
appellant was working as a peon in an aided school, and he
continues in his work. The appellant intends to apply for
Voluntary retirement, it is submitted. But as on the date when the
Tribunal took the decision, the appellant was continuing in his
work. The Tribunal has proceeded to determine compensation on
the basis of disability certificate, in which the disability was 35%.
This court has referred the appellant to the Medical Board. A
certificate has been issued by the Government Medical College
Hospital, Kottayam. Therein it is stated that the appellant is
having 85% permanent disability, out of which 70% is visual
disability and 15% is neuro surgical disability. Learned counsel
M.A.C.A . NO: 799 OF 2007
:3:
for the appellant submits that the appellant is not able to recognise
people because of loss of vision to his eyes. Secondly, he would
contend that the appellant has not been awarded any compensation
towards loss of amenity. Thirdly, he submitted that no amount is
awarded towards future medical bills.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the
award.
6. In the light of the assessment of the disability assessed by
the Medical Board members directed by this court, we think that
the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation on the
basis of the assessment for the post retirement period. In this
regard, we have to ascertain his income. The appellant is a peon.
Already the appellant is having disability. Having regard to his
condition and the nature of the employment that he is likely to be
engaged in, we can safely fix the income of the appellant as
Rs.2,000/- per month. Next question to be considered is the
percentage of disability. No doubt, the learned counsel for the
M.A.C.A . NO: 799 OF 2007
:4:
Insurance company points out that the percentage of disability
certified and produced in the Tribunal was 35%. But there is an
assessment by the Medical board, wherein the total disability is 70
+ 15 = 85%. We can safely fix the disability as 70%. On this
basis and taking the multiplier of 8, and as the appellant is to retire
at the age of 55 and taking the income as Rs.2,000/- per month, the
appellant would be entitled for Rs.1,34,400/-. After deducting the
amount already awarded, the appellant would be entitled for a sum
of Rs.79,400/- more. We also note that the appellant is having
15% neurological disability, on account of injuries sustained by
him, which is assessed by the Medical Board. No amount has
been awarded towards loss of amenity. Also we note that no
amount is granted for future medical bills. Considering the nature
and after effects of the injuries, we think that the appellant is
awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- more. Thus, the appellant is
allowed to realise an amount of Rs.94,400/- more. The learned
counsel for the appellant has complained that the Tribunal has
M.A.C.A . NO: 799 OF 2007
:5:
awarded only 6% interest. We modify and order interest at 7.5%
on the amount already awarded by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is
allowed to realise an amount of Rs.94,400/- along with interest at
the rate of 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of
realisation from the respondents. The appellant is also awarded
interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realisation
on the amount already awarded.
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE
dl/