KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL NO. 408/2009JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2010 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER APPELLANT United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kannur Branch Office, (Rep. by,Dr. Mohan Sankar Sr. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office – I, LMS Compound, Trivandrum. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. R. Jagadhishkumar) Vs RESPONDENT Muhammed. T., Shamir Nivas, Near Spinning Mill, P.O. Chovva, Kannur. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. N. Gangadharan & Others) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are the first opposite parties/ Insurance Company in O.P. 166/05 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of accident and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost. 2. It is a case of the complainant that the Bajaj Goods Vehicle owned by him and covered with the policy by the opposite party met with an accident. He had paid extra premium for personal accident cover to (owner- driver) for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- Complainant sustained grievous injuries at his pelvis and was hospitalized at the local hospital and thereafter at Medical College hospital, Kozhikode from 1.12.2004 to 3.1.2005. Pubic and pelvis diastasis are the injuries sustained. He was treated with external fixation under general anesthesia and also underwent surgery. Subsequently on account of inadequate reduction etc. at the pelvis joint pelvis trapping was done. The complainant was also subjected to urological treatment. At present he is unable to do the occupation of a driver and the earning capacity has been lost for ever. He was earning a sum of Rs. 250/- per day. He has spent Rs. 50,000/- towards treatment. He has undergone considerable pain and sufferings. He is having constant discomfort and is unable to work properly. He requires considerable continuing treatment. The claim was not settled so far despite sending a registered notice for which no reply was received. 3. It is the contention of the opposite party/appellants that the policy covered is confined to the injuries specifically mentioned in the policy and that the complainant has not sustained any such injuries. It was also contented that the complainant was not having any effective driving license. 4. The evidence that is considered the testimony of Pw1, Pw2 , Dw1 and Exts A1 to A4 and B1. 5. The appellants did not press the contention as to the alleged absence of effective driving license. The complainant had produced Ext. A3, driving license. 6. It is the contention of the appellant and there is no evidence as to any permanent disability sustained by the complainant and that the injuries would not attract the injuries envisaged in the terms and conditions of the Section IV of the policy. We find that in Ext. A4, the accident register cum wound certificate issued from Koyili hospital, Kannur wherein he was admitted at first the injury is mentioned as distraction pubic, symphysis . Ext. A5 which is the discharge card from Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, mentions that he was inpatient from 1.12.2004 to 3.1.2005 ie. one month and 3 days. It is mentioned therein that the complainant had sustained pubic diastasis and treated by external fixation. External fixation was removed due to inadequate reduction. Thereafter treated conservatively by pelvic strapping. There was a clean wound on the left side of the iliac crest also. Ext. A6 is the medical certificate issued by the Asst. Professor of Orthopedics who treated the complainant at the medical college hospital Kozhicode. In Ext. A6, it is mentioned that the complainant cannot do any work for six months from the day of occurrence of accident. The complainant has also produced the bills of purchase of medicines , Laboratory examinations, and payment of hospital charges and also bills of purchase of Ayurvedic medicines. It is seen that the complainant was then aged 54 years. According to Pw1 the complainant, he is unable to do any work. The doctor who examined as Pw2 has stated that the injury ie. Pelvic dislocation can result in pain during walking and that in future also there is likelihood of pain. He has denied the suggestion that the chances of recovery is rare (it has been wrongly coated by the Forum as the chance of recovery is rare). As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant. In Ext. A6 certificate issued by Pw2 there is no mention that the complainant is having any permanent disability. Dw1 the official of the opposite party has stated that the policy coverage is confined to the items of disability/injury mentioned in Section IV of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is pointed out that the complainant has no permanent total disability in the instant case. 7. On an examination of Ext. B1, conditions of policy under Section IV therein relating to personal accident covered for owner-driver, the company has undertaken to pay compensation as per the following scale for bodily injury/death sustained by the owner-driver. In the above section, it is further mentioned under head nature of injury; I. Death II. Loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye. III. Loss of one limb or sight of one eye IV. Permanent total disablement from injuries other than named above. 8. For death, the scale of compensation is mentioned as 100%; and for item No. II as 100%; and for item No. III, as 50% and item No. IV as 100%. The counsel for the appellant has pointed out that there is no evidence to sustain the contention that the complainant has sustained any permanent disability. The counsel was also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikram Green Tech(I) Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., AER 2009 SC 2403 in support of the contention that in construing the terms of policy the court is not expected to venture into extra liberalism that may result in rewriting the contract or substitute the terms which were not indented by the parties. 9. In the instant case we find that Section IV of the policy conditions only mentions that compensation will be paid as per the scale mentioned therein and the scale only indicate the measurement the extent , the ratio or proportion and nothing more. It can not be interpreted that the particular clause in the policy conditions envisaged that only on the happening of the particular injuries noted therein that the assured will be entitled for the compensation. It is also not mentioned therein that only for permanent disability, compensation would be given. Personal accidents resulting in bodily injuries are liable to be compensated. It has also to be noted that the terms if vague is to be interpreted in favor of the complainant. It is not proved that the complainant has sustained any permanent disability. But he has sustained pelvis dislocation and underwent inpatient treatment of more than one month. In the circumstances we find that the complainant is liable to be compensated as per the policy issued even in the absence of any permanent disability. We find that it would be reasonable to award a sum of 30,000/- as compensation vide the policy. The complainant also would be entitled for interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint ie. 20.6.2005. There is no justification for awarding Rs. 80,000/- ; and hence the order of the Forum is modified accordingly. The order to pay cost of Rs. 2,000/- is sustained. The opposite party/appellant shall make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% per annum from the date of this order ie. 15.10.2010. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above. The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT S.CHANDRAMOHANNAIR : MEMBER | 
