This revision petition challenged the compensation decree in a suit for personal injury. The High Court modified the lower court's award, reducing the compensation amount and interest rate while upholding the suit against a limitation defense.
Cr.P. partly allowed; compensation modified to Rs.15,000 with 9% interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2007 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1929
CRP.No. 1128 of 2004(G)
----------------------AS.190/1997 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.60/1996 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD
REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS
-------------------------------------------------------
1. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, MADATHUVILAKATHU VEEDU, ANAKUDI MURI, VAMANAPURAM VILLAGE.
2. SIVADASAN NAIR, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KUNNATHODU OF DO. DO.
BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.A.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR SRI.P.M.JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS: RESP./PLAINTIFF/ADDL.APPELLANTS/ DEF.LEGAL HEIRS.
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. G.RATNAKARAN, LATHIKA MANDIRAM, KUNNATHODU, POONTHALKONAM, VAMANAPURAM VILLAGE.
2. SYAMALA AMMA, REKHA VILASOM, THENNIMOODU, KARIMKUTTIKKARA P.O., VAMANAPURAM.
3. REKHA, DO. DO.
4. SINDHU, DO. DO.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
1/11/07
ORDER ON I.A.2740 OF 2004 IN
C.R.P.NO.1128 OF 2004
DISMISSED
SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
[ True Copy ]
P.A. TO JUDGE.
M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1128 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of November, 2007.
O R D E R
This revision petition is preferred against the judgment of the I Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.190/97. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Nedumangad in O.S.60/96. The suit is one for compensation for the injury sustained in an attack. On account of the attack the plaintiff sustained a contusion of 10 cm above the left lateral Malleolus, an incised wound above the right eye brow, another incised wound on the ulnar, a punctured wound above the injury to eye brow and the X-ray reveal a fracture. The documents produced would reveal that he was treated in Kallara Government Hospital from 24-2-85 to 22.3.85. The Court below granted a compensation of Rs.17,500/- with 12% interest. Under ordinary circumstances while exercising revisional jurisdiction the Court is not expected to interfere with the finding on facts rendered by the Court below unless there is material irregularity or illegality. In a suit for
CRP NO. 1128 of 2004
-:2:-
compensation, that is, a suit of civil nature the damages are classified under two heads namely special damages and general damages. Even in a beneficial legislation like the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act for granting compensation it is imperative that special damages have to be proved and general damages can be estimated. Here, Rs.500/- is given as expenses for transport, Rs.3,000/- is for food and clothing and Rs.3,000/- for loss of earnings. It has to be understood that the incident had taken place in the year 1985 and what was prevalent on that day has to be taken into consideration while awarding compensation for the victim. In those days one cannot by any stretch of imagination put the wages of the labourer at Rs.3,000/- per mensum. Further, the documents produced does not reveal that he was treated as an inpatient in the hospital. But he was certainly handicapped from doing any work for the reason that he had sustained fracture. Therefore, the estimate of special damages may have to be reduced taking
into consideration of the fact that Rs.3,000/- has been
CRP NO. 1128 of 2004
-:3:-
awarded for bystanders expenses and for food and Rs.3,000/as damages for loss or earnings for a month. I feel this can be minimized and the compensation can be apportioned as follows.
for doing or omitting to do an act in pursuance of any
CRP NO. 1128 of 2004
-:4:-
enactment in force. The Court further held that the present claim is not with respect to doing or omitting to do an act and since there is no specific Article which covers a situation Article 113 will apply and therefore the suit is not barred by limitation. I am in full agreement with the Courts below on the point of decision on limitation and as the suit is filed within the statutory period of limitation, the said contention cannot be accepted.
CRP NO. 1128 of 2004
matter is of 1985 I feel justice can be met if the interest is
reduced from 12% to 9%.
decree passed by the Court below is modified and the plaintiff
is given a decree for realisation of Rs.15,000/- with 9% interest on the said sum from the date of suit till realisation from the defendants with proportionate costs. So far as the Court fee is concerned, the order will stand as noted by the
Court below.
The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for compensation is barred by limitation or Article 113 applies.
Whether the compensation awarded by the lower court is excessive.
Whether interest rate of 12% should be modified.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandrasekhara Pillai
Sivadasan Nair
Ratnakaran
Syamala Amma
Rekha
Sindu
M.N. Krishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
