High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 08 KL CK 0059

Muhammed vs Shaju P. Charly, George Mathew and The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 1 August 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Basant, J · M.C. Hari Rani, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M.A.C.A. No. 746 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

31 paragraphs · 356 words

R. Basant, J.—Claimant is the Appellant. He claimed compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 15.04.1998. He had suffered compound comminuted fracture of both bones of right leg upper 1/3. He was an inpatient for 70 days. He suffered permanent disability also as a result of the accident. 10% is the permanent disability suffered.

2.

The Tribunal against a claim of Rs. 4 lakhs awarded an amount of Rs. 1,11,500/- as compensation as per the details shown below:

Head of claim Transportation

Amount awarded in Rs. 4000

Extra nourishment

Damages to clothes

5000

300

Bystander''s expenses

Pain and sufferings

7000

25000

Medical expenses

12000

Head of claim

Loss of income

Amount awarded in Rs. 5000

(2000 X 2.5)

Loss of amenities

Permanent disability

10000

43200

(2000 X 12 X 15X 10/100)

Total

1,11,500

Interest was awarded only '' 6%.

3.

Quantum is the only ground of challenge. Called upon to be specific, the learned Counsel for the Appellant assails the conclusion of the Tribunal that Rs. 2,000/- per mensem can be reckoned as the monthly income as on 15.04.98. The Appellant claims to be a soda maker. No. better evidence was produced in support of his income. The Tribunal, in these circumstances, drew the presumption of prudence that the monthly income of the Appellant can be reckoned at Rs. 2,000/- per mensem. We are unable to find any such inadequacy/defect/error in that presumption of prudence drawn by the Tribunal. The challenge on this ground cannot succeed.

4.

The only other ground of challenge raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that interest has been awarded only at the rate of 6% per annum. The learned Counsel argues and we agree that interest must have been awarded at least 7.5% per annum. To that extent, the challenge in this appeal succeeds.

5.

In the result:

a) This appeal is allowed in part;

b) The impugned award is upheld in all other respects. But it is directed that interest shall be payable '' 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim to the date of deposit/realisation.