The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Hariprasad Pillai

Joseph Francis J.

This appeal is filed by the third respondent, Insurance Company in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1619 of 2003 on the file of M.A.C.T., Mavelikkara. The case of the petitioner in the O.P.(M.V.) is briefly as follows. On 16.6.2003 the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in a scooter from Mulakkuzha to Parappattu through the public road and when he reached at the place of accident, a jeep bearing registration No. KL. B-7412 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the scooter, as a result of which the petitioner sustained serious injuries. First respondent was the owner and third respondent was the insurer of the jeep. The petitioner claimed Rs. 6,11,000/- as compensation.

Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Third respondent filed written statement admitting the policy of the jeep and contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the second respondent and that the compensation claimed is excessive.

Before the Claims Tribunal, PW 1 was examined and Exts. A1 to 14 and X1 were marked. The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence on record found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,82,200/- to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the respondents and the third respondent was ordered to deposit the amount as the insurer. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded the third respondent filed this appeal.

When this appeal came up for admission the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded under various heads is on the higher side, especially the compensation awarded under the head ''compensation for permanent disability''.

The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows:

Ext. A7 is the copy of the wound certificate issued from the Century Hospital, Mulakkuzha which shows that due to the accident the petitioner sustained the following injuries. (i) Compound segmented fracture left leg. (ii) compound fracture 2, 3, 4 and 5 metatarsals left (iii) Lacerated injury right leg and right foot (iv) Swelling left forearm and (v) Multiple abrasions.

Ext. A7 further shows that after giving first aid, he was referred to M.C.H., Kottayam. Ext. A9 is the discharge card issued from M.C.H., Kottayam. It is seen that the petitioner was treated for a segmental comminuted fracture both bones of left leg. Wound debridement and external fixation, limited open reduction was done to improve the position of the fracture. On discharge, it was observed that sutures removed and wound healed. He was treated for a period of 51 days from 16.6.2003 to 4.8.2003. Three reviews thereafter in between 15.9.2003 to 8.1.2004 are also seen endorsed in Ext. A9. The removal of external fixator and PTB cast was effected on 20.11.2003. Ext. A8 series are the O.P. tickets showing treatments on 15.3.2004, 8.4.2004, 1/2007 and 28.2.2008 upto 13.1.2011. Ext. A10 is the photocopy of case sheet showing the treatment underwent by the petitioner for the injuries noted in the wound certificate.

The petitioner produced Ext. A11 series of medical bills for a total amount of Rs. 12,485/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,500/- as medical expenses based on Ext. A11 series. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged 28 years and the Claims Tribunal rightly took 17 as the suitable multiplier. Ext. X1 is a disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, T.D. Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha dated 14.7.2011. It is certified by the Doctors who examined the petitioner that the petitioner is having 46% permanent partial disability. It is certified by the Board that the petitioner has 2 = inch shortening on the left leg due to the segmental comminuted fracture which is discharging sinus. The petitioner was a tailor by profession and was getting Rs. 5,000/- per month. But the Claims Tribunal assessed Rs. 3,000/- only as the monthly income of the petitioner. The Claims Tribunal personally examined the petitioner and was convinced that the petitioner had difficulties in moving his left leg and the Claims Tribunal accepted the percentage of disability assessed by the Medical Board. Therefore, we are of the view that the Claims Tribunal is justified in accepting Ext. X1 disability certificate prepared by a Medical Board. Since the Claims Tribunal awarded only reasonable compensation under various heads, we find no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.

Accordingly this appeal is dismissed in limine as it is without any merits. There is no order as to costs.