Allowed

Damodaran v. M.D., Ksrtc

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014MACA/2073/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging an MACT award of ₹20,500 for injuries sustained while boarding a KSRTC bus, the High Court allowed the appeal. It held the Tribunal erred in rejecting medical evidence, fixed additional compensation of ₹32,800 for disability and loss of earnings, and directed deposit with interest.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of ₹32,800 with interest at 7% from date of petition payable to the first respondent.

Damodaran Vs M.D., Ksrtc — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

MACA.No. 2073 of 2010

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 838/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA, DATED 06-05-2010

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETIIONER IN OP (MV):

¶8

DAMODARAN, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, THALIYAKATTIL HOUSE, GJELLOOR DESOM, KALLUR VILLAGE, KALLUR P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):

¶11

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶12

2. JOY, S/O.JOSEPH, THERAKKAL HOUSE, ARIMBUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 620.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC, KSRTC

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶17

¶18

M.A.C.A. No.2073 of 2010 C

¶19

Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2014

¶20

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶21

Dissatisfied with award dated 06.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P. (MV) No.838/2006, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

¶22

The petitioner sustained serious injuries in a motor accident while he was attempting to board the KSRTC

¶23

bus bearing registration No.KL-15/4410 at Chalakudy. While he was getting into the bus, the 2^nd respondent took the vehicle forward, thereby the appellant fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries. Through the impugned award, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of ₹20,500/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The

¶25

M.A.C.A.2073/2010

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that even though a disability certificate has been produced before the court below showing a disability of 8%, without adverting to it, the court below did not accept the said certificate obtained from a competent Doctor. It was also pointed out that even though a salary certificate showing his daily wages at ₹185/- was produced, the same was also not accepted by the court below. The appellant was aged 33 years at the time of the accident. Loss of earnings for 2½ months only was granted by taking the monthly income at ₹2,000/-.

¶28

It seems that the appellant had produced a disability certificate showing a disability of 8%. Ext.A3 wound certificate reveals that the appellant had sustained multiple abrasions on the body and fracture of the lateral condyle of left knee. The very same Doctor, who had treated him at St.James Hospital, Chalakudy, was working at Mother Hospital, Thrissur also. The said Doctor had issued Ext.A5 disability certificate pointing out that there is 8%

¶29

M.A.C.A.2073/2010

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

permanent disability to the appellant. The court below has not accepted the said certificate on the ground that the appellant had not undergone treatment at Mother Hospital, Thrissur. The appellant has no case that he had undergone treatment at Mother Hospital, Thrissur. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Doctor who had treated the appellant at Chalakudy was working at Mother Hospital, Thrissur also. It is true that there is no certificate of the Medical Board. When considering the seriousness of the injuries sustained to the appellant, a disability of 5% can be taken. Regarding the income, the income considered by the Tribunal as ₹2,000/- per month is too low. The Tribunal ought to have considered at least an amount of ₹3,000/- as his monthly income. Loss of earnings for three months ought to have been awarded to the appellant. In computing the compensation for disability, 16 can be taken as the multiplier.

¶32

On a calculation, the appellant is entitled to get

¶33

M.A.C.A.2073/2010

¶34

: 4 :

¶35

an amount of ₹28,800/- as compensation on account of disability. Further, an amount of ₹4,000/- more has to be awarded towards loss of earnings. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of ₹32,800/- more as additional compensation over and above the amount arrived at by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

¶36

In the result, this appeal is allowed and an amount of ₹32,800/- more is fixed as additional compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment. The first respondent shall deposit the amount within two months from today.

¶37

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶38

aks/05/06

¶39

// True Copy //

¶40

PA to Judge

Damodaran v. M.D., Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damodaran v. M.D., Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaya Babu Vs the Federal Bank Limited

Eliyas Vs Shanmugarajan

Babu Mathew Vs Basil Baby

Aboobacker Vs Purushu

Biju Vs Baburaj & Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prameela