Kerala High Court
Abdul Jaleel vs K.P.Kunhumon on 18 September, 2008
Author: M.N.Krishnan
Bench: M.N.Krishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 941 of 2006()
1. ABDUL JALEEL, S/O. CHEKKU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.P.KUNHUMON, S/O. MOIDUNNI,
... Respondent
2. K.V.RAVEENDRAN, S/O. K.K.VELAYUDHAN,
3. M.K.ABOOBACKER, S/O. KUNHUMARAKKER,
4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5. THANKAPPAN, S/O. RAKKAN,
6. MUTHALIF, S/O. CHINNATHAMBI,
7. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SUNIL
For Respondent :SRI.A.C.DEVY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :18/09/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 941 OF 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV)1446/98. The claimant, a 46 year old labourer sustained injuries in a road accident. To start with he was initially admitted in the hospital for three days from 6.8.99 and thereafter for eight days from 3.9.97 to 11.9.97. It was revealed that he had sustained disc prolapse L5 S1 following a road traffic accident. The Medical Board which examined him assessed his disability at 22.5%. The Tribunal considered it as disability for a part of the body and therefore took the permanent disability at 7%, income at Rs.1,500/- and calculated the compensation. It is against that decision the claimant has come in appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal was not right in discarding the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board especially in the M.A.C.A. 941 OF 2006 -:2:- absence of any other evidence. It can be seen from the disability certificate that he is having disc prolapse of L5 and S1. An orthopedician was also there in the Medical Board. When a person who earns his livelihood by labour that too manual sustains injury on the vertebra resulting in disc prolapse certainly it will affect his working capacity and therefore I feel that the Tribunal was not justified in fixing the disability at 7%. Considering the nature of avocation I am inclined to fix it at 15% to decide the compensation. When it is so the annual loss of earnings would come to Rs.2,700/- which when multiplied by 13 would be Rs.34,100/- deducting Rs.16,500/- already granted under the head of disability the claimant will be entitled to a compensation of Rs.17,600/- additionally under that head. The compensation granted for pain and sufferings is also low and I enhance it by another Rs.1,000/-. When at the age of 46 years a person sustains a disc prolapse it is going to be a permanent affair and certainly it will affect his day-to-day activities resulting in loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. M.A.C.A. 941 OF 2006 -:3:- I award a sum of Rs.5,000/- under that head. Therefore the claimant will be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.23,600/-.
In the result the MACA is partly allowed and the claimant is awarded an additional compensation of Rs.23,600/- with 6% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the 4th respondent in the claim petition is directed to deposit the same within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-