High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 03 KL CK 0007

P.A. Kuttikrishnan vs Smt. Annies Antony, Shri. Unnikuttan and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 24 March 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.C. Hari Rani, J · A.K. Basheer, J
CASE NUMBER
M.A.C.A. No. 2145 of 2005

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

8 paragraphs · 380 words

A.K. Basheer, J.—The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal preferred by the victim of a road traffic accident is whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to accept the percentage of disability as certified by the Medical Board in the disability certificate.

2.

The Appellant contended that he had suffered serious disabilities and infirmities as a result of the accident which to a great extent, was endorsed in Ext. A-9 certificate issued by the Medical Board attached to the General Hospital, Ernakulam. More importantly one of the Doctors in the Board was examined in the case as P.W. 2. In the certificate, the Medical Board assessed the disability of the Appellant as 40%. After noticing that the Appellant had been suffering from recurrent attacks of general weakness, tiredness and poor memory due to the injuries suffered by him on the temporal bone. It had also come on record that the Appellant had been advised not to climb trees, which substantially ruled out the possibility of the Appellant continuing with his avocation of toddy tapping. But still, the Tribunal took the view that the disability can be reckoned as only 15% and not 40% as assessed by the Tribunal.

3.

Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was not justified in reducing the percentage of disability and that too without any valid or satisfactory reasons. Curiously, the Tribunal has not given any reasons in the award as to why the percentage had to be reduced.

4.

The Tribunal had reckoned the monthly notional income of the Appellant as Rs. 1800/-. In our view, ends of justice will be met, if the notional income is taken as Rs. 2,250/- per month. Therefore, the compensation payable under the head of disability has to be worked out as hereunder:

2250 x 12 x 40 x 15/100= 1,62,000/-.

5.

Since we have adopted the notional monthly income as Rs. 2250/-, the compensation payable under the head of loss of earnings for six months shall be enhanced to Rs. 13,500/-.

6.

Since the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation under all other heads, we do not find any reason to modify the award any further.

The appeal is disposed of as above.