IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 599 of 1997(D)
1. VELAYUDHAN CHETTIAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SATHEESAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :26/09/2007
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
M.F.A.NO.599 OF 1997
------------------------------------------
Dated 26th September 2007
J U D G M E N T
Claimant in O.P.(M.V) 2679 of 1993 on the
file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara
is the appellant. He sustained injuries in a motor
accident on 26/5/1992 at about 10.15 p.m. He was a
passenger of Mahindra van Kl-01-B.171 owned by first
respondent, driven by second respondent and insured
with third respondent. According to appellant the
accident was caused due to negligent driving of
second respondent and being the owner first respondent
is liable and appellant is entitled to get
compensation from third respondent insurer. Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal on the evidence found that
accident was caused due to negligent driving of second
respondent and being the insured first respondent is
liable and being the insurer third respondent is
liable to pay the compensation.
2. Appellant contended that he sustained
fracture of left patella and treated as inpatient
MFA 599/97
2
for six days and was in plaster for 3-4 months and
sustained permanent disability. He claimed a total
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Apart from his
examination as PW2, he produced Ext.A9 O.P.Ticket and
Ext.A10 treatment certificate. Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs.9,500/-.
Unsatisfied with the quantum awarded the appeal is
filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant and
third respondent were heard.
4. Argument of learned counsel appearing for
appellant is that appellant sustained fracture of left
patella and therefore was in plaster cast for 3-4 months
and the compensation awarded is insufficient and
appellant is entitled to get compensation as sought for.
5. On hearing the learned counsel and going
through the award I do not find any ground to enhance
the compensation awarded. Award shown that on all the
heads under which appellant sought compensation, lesser
amount was awarded without considering the question
whether appellant is entitled to compensation or not on
those heads. Even though appellant did not sustain
permanent disability, compensation was awarded even for
MFA 599/97
3
permanent disability as well as loss of earning power.
Therefore, even if it is taken that compensation awarded
for pain and sufferings could have been something more
that what was awarded, in view of the compensation
awarded under undeserved heads, I do not that find
appellant is entitled to any further enhanced
compensation.
Appeal is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.
MFA 599/97
4
=============================
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
JUDGMENT
M.F.A.NO.599 OF 1997
26th September 2007
============================