Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA versus MAJEED

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA v. MAJEED - MACA No. 2066 of 2005 [2006] RD-KL 74 (3 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA No. 2066 of 2005()

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,THE NEW INDIA
... Petitioner

Vs

1. MAJEED,S/O MOHAMMED,MALAMTHOTTAMKOLLIYIL
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

For Respondent :SRI.M.C.ANTONY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

Dated :03/07/2006

O R D E R

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J

M.A.C.A.No.2066 OF 2005

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2006



JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the insurer, who, with leave of the Tribunal, has contested the matter on the question of quantum of compensation also, following orders of the Tribunal on I.A.1211/05.

2. The claimant, aged 62 years at the time of the accident, going by the claim petition, was hit by a motor cycle at about 11 A.M. on 7.9.1999, while crossing the road in front of Meenangadi market in Kalpetta. The insurer was admitted to the hospital and treated as an inpatient and discharged on 12.7.1999. Except Ext.A1 FIR, Ext.A2 Scene Mahazar, Ext.A3 Charge sheet, Ext.A4 Body Mahazar and Ext.A5 Report of AMVI, the petitioner tendered only Ext.A6 Accident Register cum wound certificate, wherein, the details of injuries have been recorded by the Medical Officer. It discloses the wounds extracted in para (7) of the impugned award. The claimant sustained an incised wound MACA.2066/05 2 to the muscles below the right elbow and another skin touching incised wound in the right forearm, apart from an abrasion on the back of the heal. Loosening of two upper incisors has also been recorded in Ext.A6. There is no other documentary evidence on record. The claimant gave evidence as PW1, stating that he had lost two teeth and had suffered injuries and was hospitalised in the District Hospital. Apart from stating that he was 60 years old and was getting wages at Rs.150/- (per day ?), there was not even a whisper in his deposition regarding the amount spent by him for treatment or the nature of expenses incurred by him under different heads in support of the claim.

3. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- by splitting up the said amount as shown in para (8) of the impugned award, which is as follows: loss of earning Rs. 200.00 Transport charges Rs. 1,000.00 Extra Nourishment Rs. 1,500.00 Damage to clothing Rs. 500.00 Medical expenses & treatment Rs. 10,000.00 MACA.2066/05 3 Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000.00 Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000.00 Simple injury Rs. 1,800.00 TOTAL Rs. 35,000.00
=========

4. Having identified 'Pain and suffering' as a head of claim, there was obviously no reason to award an amount of Rs.1,800/- under a head - Simple injury. There was absolutely no evidence, at least the oral evidence of PW1, as regards the 'Medical expenses'. Yet the Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- in that head. Rs.1,000/- was granted towards 'Transport charges' and Rs.1,500/- towards 'extra nourishment' and another Rs.5,000/- for 'loss of amenities', apart from Rs.500/- for 'damage to clothing'. All the said amounts are not supported by even a little of evidence as one would expect in a proceedings before the Tribunal. However, the undisputed fact remains that he was a labourer and apart from the injuries by way of incised wounds, two of his incisors were 'loosened' going by Ext.A6. Having fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2,500/-, one fails to understood as to how only an amount of Rs.200/- was granted as MACA.2066/05 4 'loss of earning'.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent/claimant, the impugned award is modified to the following extent. loss of earning Rs. 2,500.00 Transport charges Rs. 1,000.00 Extra Nourishment Rs. 1,500.00 Damage to clothing Rs. 500.00 Medical expenses & treatment Rs. 5,000.00 Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000.00 Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000.00 Simple injury Rs. NIL TOTAL Rs. 25,500.00
=========

6. In the result, the impugned award is modified by reducing the amount due to the claimant as Rs.25,500/- with interest at the rate granted by the Tribunal. It is clarified that the entire amount due shall be released to MACA.2066/05 5 the petitioner without insisting on any deposit in the financial institution, having regard to the amount involved and the age of the claimant. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge kkb. MACA.2066/05 6
=======================

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J

L.A.A.NO. OF 200

JUDGMENT

3rd JULY, 2006.
=======================


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.