Kerala High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Jenkins Rajan on 15 September, 2008
Author: Koshy
Bench: J.B.Koshy, K.P.Balachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1543 of 2008()
1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JENKINS RAJAN, S/O.NESAYYAN, THENKIVILAI
... Respondent
2. BOVAS, S/O.CHELLA NADAR, 18/12 B,
3. RAMANATHAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL
5. VISWANATHAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :15/09/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & K.P. Balachandran, JJ.
-------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1543 of 2008
--------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J.
Fifth respondent in the appeal sustained an injury in a motor accident on 31.1.2000. Admittedly, he was a driver by profession. The accident occurred while driving the vehicle. Two vehicles were involved. His application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was converted into an application under section 163-A by filing an amendment application which was allowed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the question of negligence need not be looked into. His monthly income was Rs.3,000/- (yearly income at Rs.36,000/-). Therefore, claim is maintainable under section 163-A of theMotor Vehicles Act. Even though monthly income was stated to be Rs.3,000/-, the Tribunal has taken only Rs.2,000/-. There is no reason for reducing the monthly income of a professional experienced driver. According to the claimant, he was aged 52 at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has taken his age should be between 55 and 60 and then taken 8 as the multiplier. If the age is between 55 and 60, the multiplier will be 11 under section 163-A. It M.A.C.A.No.1543/2008 2 is true that no medical certificate was produced assessing the percentage of disability, but, the Tribunal noticed that the x-rays show comminuted fracture of both bones of right leg. The Tribunal has taken 8% as the percentage of disability. The claimant has undergone two operations. He was in the hospital from 31.1.2000 to 10.2.2000 and from 8.5.2000 to 9.5.2000. Considering the nature of his profession, age and other details, we are of the opinion that 8% disability assessed by the Tribunal is not on the high side. In fact, considering the fact that a lower multiplier was taken, it cannot be stated that compensation awarded is excessive. It is also to be noted that total compensation awarded was Rs.24,360/- out of which only 50% was directed to be paid by the fifth respondent insurance company which insured the other vehicle involved in the accident. Considering the amount awarded and considering the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that it is not a fit case where appeal can be entertained at the instance of the insurance company. If any party is aggrieved, it is only the claimants who are aggrieved by this order.
The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.Koshy Judge K.P. Balachandran Judge vaa M.A.C.A.No.1543/2008 3 J.B. KOSHY AND K.P.Balachandran,JJ.
------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1543/2008
-------------------------------------
Judgment Date:15th September,2008