High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
K.T.DEVASSY v. NANDANAN - MFA No. 1656 of 1998(B)  RD-KL 2376 (1 February 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMMFA No. 1656 of 1998(B)
For Petitioner :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
O R D E R
(M.RAMACHANDRAN & S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ)C.M.P.No.6752 of 1998 & M.F.A.No.1656 of 1998-B
Dated this the Ist day of February, 2007
Siri Jagan, J:Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The claimant in O.P. (MV) No.865 of 1993, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, is the appellant herein. He has approached this Court with this appeal claiming enhanced compensation. The Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs.14,250/-. The contention of the appellant is that this amount is too low and is not commensurate with the injuries and consequential disabilities sustained by the appellant.
3. The appellant was 53 years of old at the time of accident. He was a grocery merchant. He sustained two injuries in the accident, which were (1) shaped lacerated wound over the occipital area of scalp 6 cm.long, and (2) fracture rib left side. [MFA No.1656 of 1998]
4. The main contention of the appellant is that although on account of the injuries sustained by him, he had incurred permanent disability of 8% as certified by the Orthopedic Surgeon, who examined him. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount under this head. The appellant submits that the Tribunal has not even referred to Ext.A7 disability certificate produced by the appellant. The appellant therefore submits that he should be awarded compensation for this disability also.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the third respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the third respondent opposes the claim of the appellant. According to him, the injuries sustained by the appellant has properly healed and has not resulted in any permanent disability. He strongly disputes the veracity of the disability certificate. He would submit that the same is as vague as possible. He would also further submit that since the disability certificate itself [MFA No.1656 of 1998] specifically states that the fracture has been united, there is no possibility of the appellant sustaining any permanent disability.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. At the outset, we find that the appellant had claimed a monthly income of Rs.1500/-. However, the Tribunal had arbitrarily fixed the same as only Rs.1000/-. Admittedly, the appellant was a grocery merchant. He also deposed to the effect that he himself was employing others in his business. That being so, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal went wrong in arbitrarily reducing the monthly income of the petitioner by Rs.500/-. Although we are also not satisfied about the veracity of the disability certificate, it cannot be ruled out that the appellant may be suffering from discomfort on account of the fracture, although the same was united.
8. Taking into account all the above aspects, we feel that the appellant should be given some additional compensation. On a rough and ready method of [MFA No.1656 of 1998] calculation, we direct the third respondent--Insurance Company to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- as additional compensation to the appellant. We make it clear that the said amount will not carry any interest, and that the amount as awarded above takes in the interest element also. The amount shall be paid within two months from today. The appeal is disposed of as above. M.RAMACHANDRAN
(JUDGE)mks/ [MFA No.1656 of 1998]
(M.RAMACHANDRAN & S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ)
M.F.A.No.1656 of 1998-B
Dated: Ist day of February, 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.