Kerala High CourtChristopher vs N.R.Chandranath on 26 June, 2009Bench:K.M.Joseph,M.L.Joseph FrancisIN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1408 of 2005()


1. CHRISTOPHER, S/O.P.JOHN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. N.R.CHANDRANATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. S.SREEKUMARAN NAIR,

3. M/S.ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,

4. MAHENDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.JAYASANKAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :26/06/2009

 O R D E R
          K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
        ------------------------------------------------------
                 M.A.C.A.No.1408 of 2005-B
           ----------------------------------------------
            Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2009

                         J U D G M E N TJoseph, J.The appellant has been awarded a sum of

Rs.40,500/-. The complaint of the appellant is against the

quantum. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

learned counsel for the Insurance Company.2.   The learned counsel for the appellant would

submit that having regard to the injury he should have been

awarded compensation at the certified percentage of disability.

Though 7% disability was assessed           only 6% disability has

been taken by the Tribunal, he contends. The learned counsel

further submits that the income taken by the Tribunal is

Rs.1,800/- per month. The appellant is a carpenter. He has

produced A10 copy of S.S.I.Registration certificate.           He

submits that the income should have been taken as Rs.200/-

per day. He would further point out that having regard to the

injury, for pain and suffering only Rs.8,000/- granted is on

the lower side.     Further, he submits that towards loss ofMACA 1408/2005                 -2-amenities only Rs.5,000/- is granted.3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company

supported the award.4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties we feel that the appellant is entitled to

enhancement. The appellant has sustained incised wounds

measuring 4x3x0.5 cm. in the post auricular region of the ear

and lacerated wound with skin loss in the left pinna and a

fracture of the right clavicle.   He was treated by clavicular

brace, cuff and color sling        wound suturing and ENT

consultation was also done. As far as the income is concerned

we feel that we can safely fix Rs.2,000/- per month having

regard to the date of accident and the vocation of the

appellant. It may be true that the appellant has not examined

himself.   He has produced A10 copy of permanent SSI

registration. We fix the income as     Rs.2,000/- instead of

Rs.1,800/-.    On the above basis the appellant would be

entitled to a sum of Rs.24,480/-       which is rounded as

Rs.24,500/- towards disability (Already Rs.22,032/- stands

awarded).    We do not think that the appellant has made outMACA 1408/2005                -3-any ground to increase the percentage of disability from 6% to

7%. We feel that the percentage of disability is adequate.

On the basis of the increase in the income the appellant would

be entitled to Rs.400/- more towards loss of earning. We feel

that the appellant can be awarded           a further sum of

Rs. 2,000/- towards pain and suffering. In view of the injury

suffered we also feel that the appellant is to be granted a

further sum of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of amenity. On the

whole    the appellant would be entitled to Rs.7,500/- more.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is

allowed to realise Rs.7,500/- more with interest at 7.5 percent

from the date of the petition till the date of realisation from

the 3rd respondent.(K.M.JOSEPH)
                                              JUDGE.(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
                                              JUDGE.MS