IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1238 of 2008()
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.P.DINESAN, S/O.CHATHU, KIZHAKKE
... Respondent
2. DASAN, S/O.CHATHU, RESIDING AT
3. BHASKARAN.V. S/O.VIYYOTH KANNAN MASTER,
For Petitioner :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :20/08/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1238 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara in O.P.(MV)956/04. The
claimant, aged 58 years, a pensioner and working as an
administrator of Gokulam Public School sustained injuries in
a road accident and he had contusion and swelling on the left
elbow which revealed later that he had sustained a
comminuted fracture of the left radial head. He was treated
as an inpatient in the hospital from 12.7.04 to 15.7.04. The
Tribunal granted him Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for
pain and sufferings. He was granted Rs.600/- for hospital
expenses, Rs.1,000/- for bystander’s expenses and extra
nourishment and Rs.3,000/- for the mental shock suffered by
him. I feel this is a head under which the Tribunal should not
have granted any amount. The Tribunal found that his
pension was Rs.5,126/- and salary was Rs.7,000/-. The
Tribunal presumed that he would not have worked for two
M.A.C.A. 1238 OF 2008
-:2:-
months. It can be seen that the injury sustained by him is
only a fracture on the radial head of the left hand. He was
working as an administrator only for which one does not
require physical exertion. So I feel this is a fit case where
the loss of income need be granted for only one month. So
Rs.7,000/- has to be deducted under that head and another
Rs.3,000/- has to be deducted for mental shock.
2. Then the next question is regarding the disability
compensation. The Tribunal took his income at Rs.12,126/-,
i.e., Rs.7,000/- towards salary obtained as an administrator
and Rs.5,126/- as pension and calculated the compensation.
I am afraid that such a calculation is not correct.
Irrespective of the injury sustained there will not be any
deprivation of the pensionery benefits and so also fracture of
the hand has not caused him the loss of job so as to
compensate him 100% for the same. I feel the Tribunal
should have limited it to a reasonable income and calculated
the disability compensation. I fix it Rs.3,500/- and when it is
worked out at 3% with a multiplier of 8 it would come to
M.A.C.A. 1238 OF 2008
-:3:-
Rs.10,080/- which means that the compensation has to be
deducted to a tune of Rs.24,842/-.
3. So from these discussions the total compensation
to be deducted would come to Rs.34,842/- which means the
revised compensation to be fixed would be only Rs.41,444/-.
So the MACA is partly allowed and a revised award is passed
as follows.
4. The claimant is awarded a compensation of
Rs.41,444/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date
of petition till realisation and Rs.2,000/- as costs. The order
of deposit passed by the Tribunal shall be maintained.
The MACA is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-