Anilkumar M.M. vs AJI and Others

Joseph Francis, J.—This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No. 185 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The case of the petitioner in the O.P. (MV) is briefly as follows : On 27.9.2006 at about 8.15 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-7/AZ 5816 from Parur to Tripunithura towards east and when he reached at Thaikoodam, a stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-17/D 9295 which came from the same direction hit on the motorcycle and thereby, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent who was the driver of the offending vehicle. The third respondent was the insurer. Respondents 4 to 6 are the rider, owner an insurer of the motorcycle respectively. The petitioner claimed Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation.

The third respondent filed written statement admitting the policy of the offending vehicle and contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the first respondent and that the compensation claimed is excessive. The 6th respondent filed written statement contending that the accident was due to the negligence of the first respondent. The other respondents remained ex parte.

Before the Claims Tribunal, the petitioner filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. The learned Tribunal, on considering the evidence on record, found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,83,601/- to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization from the respondents 1 to 3 and the third respondent was directed to deposit the amount as the insurer. Against the quantum of compensation awarded, the petitioner filed this appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded is very low and that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation under various heads. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the appellant is not entitled to get any enhanced compensation.

The Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows :

Ext.A2 is the wound certificate issued from Well Care Hospital, Vyttila showing that due to the accident, the petitioner sustained the following injuries :

Bilateral Superior public ramous fracture with right side fracture displaced, Urinary bladder injury due to blunt injury of abdomen, Perennial injury and mesenteric injury and retro pepritoneal haematoma.

Ext.A8 is the discharge summary issued from that hospital showing that the petitioner was admitted in that hospital on 27.9.2006 and was discharged on 26.10.2006. In Ext.A8, it is stated as follows :

O/E: He was found to have a bilateral sup. public ramus fracture with the right side fracture displaced. He also had a bladder and perineal injury, which was treated by emergency surgical repair by the general surgeon. His orthopaedic injuries were treated with an upper tibial pin traction and lateral trochanteric traction. He required several blood transfusions and his recovery was slow but steady. He was also put on a curse of NSAIDS and antibiotics. His traction apparatus was removed after 3 weeks.

The petitioner produced Ext.A12 medical bills for Rs. 92,101/-. According to the petitioner, at the time of accident, he was engaged in Aluminium fabrication work and he was getting Rs. 12,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs. 4,000/- which according to us is on the lower side and we fix the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs. 7,500/-. Calculating on that basis, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 22,500/- as compensation for loss of earnings for three months instead of Rs. 12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Rs. 4,000/- can be awarded towards expenses for extra nourishment instead of Rs. 2,000/- awarded. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the prolonged treatment, Rs. 50,000/- claimed by the petitioner is awarded towards compensation for pain and suffering in the place of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Rs. 45,000/- claimed towards compensation for loss of convenience in life is awarded, instead of Rs. 40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in total, the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 37,500/- as additional compensation.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/petitioner is allowed to realize 37,500/- as additional compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization from the respondents 1 to 3 and the third respondent is directed to deposit the amount as the insurer. There is no order as to costs.