Kerala High Court
The New India Ssurance Company Ltd vs Thomas Jose Titus (Minor) on 30 November, 2021
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
MACA NO. 187 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1974/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
ERNAKULAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL
OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI - 11.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
THOMAS JOSE TITUS (MINOR)
S/O.TITUS THOMAS
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER TINU M.JOSE,
MALAYIL HOUSE, PERUMPILLY P.O.,
MULAMTHURUTHY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SMT.ANILA PETER
SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN
SRI.C..ARUN PRASANTH (CAVEATOR)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 29.09.2021, THE COURT ON 30.11.2021 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No.187 of 2014
2
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.187 of 2014
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claim was preferred by the respondent herein who was a 4 month old baby at the time of the accident. The accident occurred on 4.8.2009. The car in which the baby was travelling along with his parents was hit by another car, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting in serious injuries to the respondent child. The child was taken to MOSC Medical College, Kolencherry. A claim petition was filed in which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,50,500/- as compensation. The case of the appellant is that the amount awarded is excessive.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the child was in the hospital for eight days. Four Doctors were examined as PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5. PW4 has stated that the child was treated for jaundice even before the accident and ultrasound scan M.A.C.A. No.187 of 2014 3 had also been taken. It is submitted that the accident was a minor accident and the treatment actually was for certain congenital diseases. Relying on the wound certificate, it is submitted that it shows only contusion. The learned counsel for the respondent child submitted that the child was discharged on 12.8.2009 and it can be seen from the evidence that the child was having post traumatic hydrocephalous and therefore right ventriculo-peritoneal shunt placement was also done. The Tribunal has gone into the evidence of the Doctors in detail and has rejected the plea of the Insurance Company that the accident had caused only a minor injury and that the child was having congenital diseases for which he was being treated. Hydrocephalous cannot be seen as a minor injury and the treatment afforded is also to ensure there is no excess cerebrospinal fluid. The above condition was not due to any congenital factor and was directly a result of the accident.
The Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons for its findings. I do not think that any interference is called for with regard to the findings of the Tribunal. No grounds are made out in the appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI JUDGE dsn