PRABHAVATHI Vs. ABDUL SHUKKOOR
LAWS(KER)-2016-7-98
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on July 14,2016

PRABHAVATHI Appellant
VERSUS
Abdul Shukkoor Respondents




JUDGEMENT

K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH,J. - (1.)This appeal is preferred by the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No.461/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. The challenge is against the quantum of compensation awarded. The facts relevant for consideration of this appeal is as follows: The appellant herein sustained tibial fracture in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 13.2.2002 at Mudapuram. She was admitted in the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Chirayinkil and was treated therein for the said injuries. She was treated as an inpatient for 146 days. She was examined by a doctor and assessed her disability as 20%. Her claim is that she was a vegetable vendor by profession and was earning Rs.3,000/ - per month. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.60,020/ -. The total amount of compensation awarded as per the original award is seen corrected as per order in I.A.Nos.854/2007 & 849/2007 in O.P.(M.V.)461/2002. Aggrieved by the said assessment, this appeal is preferred.
(2.)When the petition came up for hearing, the main submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that even though the case of the petitioner is that she is a vegetable vendor by profession, only a notional income of Rs.1,800/ - per month is seen considered by the Tribunal. It is the submission that going by the decision of the Apex court in Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735] in the case of a vegetable vendor, who was aged 24 years, the monthly income was taken at Rs.6,500/ - where the accident occurred in the year 2008. It is also the submission that even though the petitioner was treated for 146 days as an inpatient in the hospital, only a sum of Rs.7,000/ - is seen awarded towards pain and suffering. More over no amount is seen awarded towards bystander's expenses. It is the further submission that even though an expert i.e. an Orthopedic Surgeon assessed the disability as 20%, without showing any reason, the Tribunal reduced the same to 15% It is the submission that it is a fit case where an interference by this court is warranted. It is the submission that the amount awarded is not a just compensation.
(3.)We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. It is submitted that, it is only a case of fracture of tibia. No complication is seen noted in the first wound certificate. It is the further submission that there is no evidence adduced by the claimant to establish/prove that she is a vegetable vendor by profession. It is a case where even the claimant was not examined before the court. It is also the submission that the accident in question occurred in the year 2002, whereas the Apex Court considered the income of a vegetable vendor as Rs.6,500/ - in a case where the accident occurred in 2008 and wherein claimant was examined as PW1. In this case, neither the doctor who issued the disability certificate nor the claimant was examined before the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, an interference by this court is not warranted as a just compensation was assessed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.