Kerala High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Antappan on 3 July, 2008
Author: Koshy
Bench: J.B.Koshy, P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1332 of 2008()
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANTAPPAN, S/O AMBROSE,
... Respondent
2. VARGHESE MATHEW,
3. SHIBILI, S/O SHAHUL HAMEED,
For Petitioner :SRI.LAL GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :03/07/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.1332 OF 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated 3rd July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
Appellant Insurance Company questions the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in O.P.(M.V)No.2390 of 2000. A man aged 54 years sustained serious injuries in an accident on 19.4.2000. While he was walking along the public road, a jeep owned by the first respondent and driven by the second respondent knocked him down. He claimed a compensation of Rs.4,67,500/=. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant insurance company. The appellant insurance company was directed to deposit Rs.2,76,700/= with interest. According to the insurance company, the amount awarded was excessive. The above amount awarded was inclusive of reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.59,530/= on production of medical bills. The claimant was 54 years old at the time of accident. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court in Smt.Supe Dei and others v. M/s.National Insurance Company Ltd. and another (JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 451) and recently in A.P.S.R.T.C v. M.Pentaiah Chary (2007 AIR SCW 5689) that even though second schedule is framed for calculation of MACA.1332/2008 2 compensation under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it can be taken as guidelines for fixing compensation in claims under section 166 also. Under second schedule, if age of the victim is between 50 and 55, multiplier is 11. But, Tribunal has taken only 8 as the multiplier. In fact, it is a case of grievance by the claimant and not by the insurance company. Tribunal has taken only Rs.3,000/= as the monthly income. The claimant was a Carpenter by profession. The evidence shows that he was a carpenter specialised in boat building. Considering the wages of a carpenter in Kerala, he would have got getting Rs.200/= per day. Tribunal has taken only Rs.3,000/= as monthly income which is not adequate. In any event, insurance company cannot contend that the monthly income of Rs.3,000/= assessed by the Tribunal for a 54 year old man, who was maintaining a family, in the year 2000 is arbitrary.
2. With regard to the injuries, Ext.A4 wound certificate shows the following injuries:
"1. Incised wound left forehead along the bridge of nose to upper lip splitting the face longitudinally.
2. Avulsion of left eye ball bleeding profusely and avulsion of left side of nose and cheek. MACA.1332/2008 3
3. Open comminuted fracture left side of and zygoma.
4. Open comminuted fracture left side of maxilla and zygoma.
5. Bleeding nostrils.
6. CT Scan of brain shows:
(a) Subarachnoid (a kind of bleeding in brain)
(b) Fracture of (1) anterior and lateral wall of left maxillary sinus (2) nasal bones (3) lateral and medial wall of left orbit (4) Sibriform plate (5) frontal bone through the frontal sinus.
7. Diffused contusion along the left orbit and frontal regions.
8. Opacification of left sphenoid, ethmoid, maxillary and frontal sinus."
He was in the hospital for about a month from 19.4.2000 to 13.5.2000. After discharge also he was again admitted in the hospital. Ext.A6 shows that orbital floor and anterior wall of maxilla were reconstructed. Left medial canthus repositioned and artificial eye given. He has loss of vision in left eye with reduced vision in right eye and mild disturbance in immediate memory. Permanent disability assessed was 36%. That was accepted by the Tribunal. Going by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 40% is fixed as loss of earning capacity for loss of one eye, without complications, the other being normal MACA.1332/2008 4 (Item No.25 in Part II of Schedule I). Here, apart from loss of vision of right eye, it affected the other eye also. There was loss of memory also. There are many other injuries also. In any event, acceptance of the medical certificate assessing 36% disability is not arbitrary so as to warrant interference. Tribunal did not award any compensation for future or any incidental expenses in the long inpatient treatment. In any even, it cannot be stated that the amount awarded is exorbitant and the award cannot be questioned by the insurance company on the question of quantum. Only Rs.10,000/= was awarded for future treatment. Considering the nature of injuries, it is a clear case that a long term future treatment is required. In fact, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate considering the various injuries suffered by the claimant. Absolutely no grounds are made out by the insurance company to interfere in the impugned award.
The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks