IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 839 of 2009()
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANOJ, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.ELIAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :11/11/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 839 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV)318/04.
The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he
has been awarded a compensation of Rs.78,720/-. It is
against that decision the insurance company has come up in
appeal challenging the quantum of compensation.
2. Learned senior counsel is fully justified in making
his submission regarding the quantum that is seen awarded
in this case. It is true that the claimant who is a carpenter
by profession had sustained a fracture on the lateral tibial
condyle and a comminuted fracture on the middle phalanx of
the little finger. He was treated as an inpatient for 8 days in
March, 2004 and for three days in November, 2006. The
Tribunal awarded a liberal compensation of Rs.15,000/- for
pain and sufferings, Rs.6,000/- for loss of earnings,
Rs.22,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards
M.A.C.A. 839 OF 2009
-:2:-
loss of amenities and also Rs.30,720/- for his disability. I feel
there was no basis before the Tribunal to fix the percentage
of disability. But it is always a common practice when there
is a disability seen the Tribunal fix it so as to avoid
unnecessary protraction of the litigation. But here the
fracture is on the lateral condyle of the tibia and also phalanx
of the finger. There is nothing before the Court to show that
the fractures are malunited or it has caused deformity or in
what way it has affected really the person. Since he is a
carpenter by profession a fracture on the tibia coupled with
the fracture on the finger will have some impact on him at
least for a fair length of time. Therefore I feel in the fitness
of things the disability can be fixed by making a maximum
disability of 4%. When the income is Rs.2,000/- and the
disability is at 4% and further as per the decision of the Apex
Court in 2009 ACJ 1298(Sarala Varma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation) the multiplier is to be taken is 16.
The disability compensation would come to Rs.960/- per
annum which when multiplied by 16 would make it as
M.A.C.A. 839 OF 2009
-:3:-
Rs.14,460/-. An amount of Rs.30,720/- is already awarded.
Therefore it would be Rs.16,260/- which has to be deducted
from the total compensation of Rs.78,720/-. That would
come to Rs.62,460/-. In the result the MACA is partly
allowed and a modified award is passed as follows.
3. The claimant is awarded a compensation of
Rs.62,460/- with 7% interest on the said sum from
respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally from the date of
petition till realisation and the 3rd respondent, insurance
company is directed to deposit the same within a period of
sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment. The other directions given by the Tribunal
regarding the disbursement etc. shall stand.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-