Kerala High Court
T.P.Satheesan Pillai vs V.A.Noorjahan on 17 February, 2011
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, N.K.Balakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 610 of 2005()
1. T.P.SATHEESAN PILLAI, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.A.NOORJAHAN, W/O. P.P.H.KABEER,
... Respondent
2. SADIQ, S/O. ALI, VELEEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURNACE COMPANY
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.S.MAMMU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :17/02/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.610 OF 2005
------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan, J.
The claimant is in appeal. When this appeal came up for hearing, Adv.S.Mammu has taken notice on behalf of the 3rd respondent Insurance Company.
2. The appellant herein sustained injuries in a motor accident which took place on 5/3/1998. The car which hit the appellant was insured with the 3rd respondent. After analysing the evidence, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.51,000/- as compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant had sustained fracture on the right patella and also other injuries, the compensation awarded for disability and loss of amenities is too meagre. The learned counsel also submitted that towards attendant expenses only Rs.2,000/- was granted. The appellant was in POP cast from 18/3/1998 to 23/4/1998. On the day of MACA.No.610/2005 2 accident the appellant was admitted in the hospital (5/3/1998) and was discharged on 11/3/1998.
3. On going through the judgment, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation in respect of the medical expenses, for expenses incurred for transport to hospital and for pain and suffering. With regard to the attendant expenses, instead of Rs.2,000/- it can be enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. Towards loss of income for two months, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the further fact that he was in POP cast nearly for 45 days, it is reasonable to assume that because of the injury he might have been prevented from going for work for three months and thus towards loss of earning he can be given Rs. 9,000/- in stead of Rs.6,000/-.
4. Though it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal should have awarded atleast 50,000/- as compensation for disability and also towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life, no disability certificate was produced nor is there any other evidence to substantiate that contention. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company MACA.No.610/2005 3 submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and that no enhancement should be given. It is seen that as compensation for alleged disability and loss of amenities and enjoyment, the Tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rs.5000+Rs.5000). Since the appellant had sustained fracture to right patella, total sum of Rs.15,000/- can be granted under the heads mentioned above instead of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the court below. Thus, the appellant is entitled to get a total further sum of Rs.9,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the MACT. The aforesaid amount will carry interest at the rate of 7 = p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. No costs.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk