Kerala High Court
Jisha C vs Moyin Haji on 15 September, 2009
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair, C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 316 of 2003()
1. JISHA C., D/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MOYIN HAJI, KARIMBINGODE HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. NERHTAKUNDIL LAKSHMANAN S/O. KUTTY,
3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
4. P.M.ABDULLA S/O. ALI HAJI,
5. VALIYAKATH ABDURAHIMAN S/O. ALAVI,
6. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent :SRI.A.R.GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :15/09/2009
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
----------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 316 of 2003
----------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
----------------------
Abdul Rehim,J.
Claimant in OP(MV) 386/98 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, is in appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. The appellant who was aged 17 years, a student studying in 11th standard, sustained injuries when a Bus in which she was travelling collided with another Bus. The Tribunal found that the accident was due to composite negligence of both the vehicles. The 6th respondent being the insurer of both the vehicles was made liable to pay the compensation. The appellant sustained a penetrating wound on her right abdomen and hemicolectomy was done. She was treated at Medical College Hospital, Calicut. One of her kidneys got severely damaged and emergency nephrostomy was done. Subsequently she developed septicaemia and acute renal failure as a consequence of which she developed sensorineual hearing loss in both ears which is a secondary effect of the renal damage. She continued treatment for hearing loss at All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore. Certificate issued by the Medical MACA.316/03 2 Board of the District Hospital, Manjeri showed that she had average hearing loss of 80dB in both the ears. The extent of disability was assessed at 21%. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,36,900/-.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for 6th respondent insurance company. The appellant contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is unrealistic and too inadequate. It is contended that the Tribunal had failed in awarding any amount towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Inspite of evidence that Cochlear implant and usage of programmable Digital Hearing Aids may improve her permanent disability, the Tribunal had not awarded any amount for future treatment or for future medical care. It is also contended that the Tribunal had failed in awarding any amount considering the loss of marriage prospects.
3. On an anxious consideration of the award and evaluation of the evidence on record we are inclined to grant compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Considering the suggestions made in Ext.A6(b) and A8 Medical reports we are persuaded to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards future treatment and another sum of Rs.15,000/- for purchase of hearing aids. The disability, in the MACA.316/03 3 nature of total hearing loss, will definitely have an impact on the marriage prospects of the appellant. Therefore we are inclined to award an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss for diminished future prospects of marriage. Thus the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the total compensation by a sum of Rs.75,000/-.
4. In the result the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the total compensation of Rs.1,36,900/- awarded by the Tribunal by a further sum of Rs.75,000/- which will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till payment. The 6th respondent insurance company is directed to make payment of the amount within a period of three months.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb