IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.N. Ravindran and Babu Mathew P. Joseph, JJ.
Karunakaran – Appellant
Vs.
Abdul Rasheed – Respondents
M.A.C.A. No. 458 of 2007
Decided On : 23-09-2015
Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 142 - Accident Claim - Claim of compensation for injuries sustained - Permanent disability - Determination of - Disability Certificate - Held, doctor who has assessed and certified the disability not being the doctor who has treated the injured cannot be a sound reason for rejecting the disability certificate - no binding principle that, in order to rely on a disability certificate, it should have necessarily been issued by the doctor who treated the injured - A Medical Board constituted in a medical college or in a district or general hospital is usually competent enough to assess and certify the disability of a person.
Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.
1. The appellant sustained serious injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 11.3.2005 by knocking him down by a car while he was walking along the side of the road. He has preferred a petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. The learned Tribunal, after considering the matter, found that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car and awarded a total compensation of Rs.40,000/- under various heads as follows:
Transport to hospital Rs. 1,000/-
Damages to clothing Rs. 500/-
Expenses for bystander Rs. 1,500/-
Extra-nourishment Rs. 1,000/-
Medical bills Rs. 8,800/-
Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 8,000/-
Loss of earnings Rs. 9,000/-
Total Rs. 39,800/-
Rounded to Rs. 40,000/-
The third respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent Insurance Company. Notice to the respondents 1 and 2 was dispensed with for the reason that the third respondent Insurance Company did not dispute its liability to pay compensation in this case.
2. The appellant was taken to A1 Shifa Hospital, Perinthalmanna, after the accident. He has sustained segmental fracture of right humerus. There were abrasions on the right elbow and right knee. Also suffered laceration on the chin apart from sustaining mobility of his upper right first and second incisors. He was treated at that Hospital as inpatient from 11.3.2005 to 13.3.2005. Thereafter, he was admitted to Imbichibava Memorial Government Taluk Hospital, Ponnani. He has undergone a major surgery viz., interlocking nailing of humerus and bone grafting. He has undergone inpatient treatment there from 13.3.2005 to 26.3.2005. He was on plaster cast for six weeks. After removal of the plaster cast, he was on active physiotherapy. He was aged 40 at the time of accident. He was a construction worker during that period. The appellant was examined before the Tribunal as PW 1 when he has stated the difficulties being experienced by him as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident.
3. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,000/- as compensation for loss of earnings. For this purpose, the Tribunal has fixed his monthly income at Rs. 3,000/-. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. But, on considering the serious nature of injuries and treatments including surgery, we are of the view that the appellant could not have earned income, at least, for a period of six months after the accident. Therefore, we enhance the compensation under the head of loss of earnings to Rs. 18,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering. This is palpably low. On considering the serious nature of injuries and treatment, we enhance the same to Rs.25,000/-.
4. The appellant raised a claim, before the Tribunal, based on permanent disability relying on Ext. A8 Disability Certificate dated 14.7.2006 issued by Dr. Jacob P.J., Department of Orthopaedics, Medical College, Thrissur. It is certified in this document that the appellant had a temporary disability of 40% for the first six months and he has a permanent disability (whole body) of 11.5% as per Mc Bride Scale. But, the Tribunal did not accept Ext. A8 for the reasons that the doctor who issued the certificate was not examined and he was not the doctor who treated the appellant. The Tribunal, in fact, not awarded any amount under the head of permanent disability even though awarded some amount under the head of loss of amenities. As directed by this Court, the appellant appeared before the Medical Board of the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, for the purpose of assessing his permanent disability. Accordingly, the Medical Boa
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.