Annie Jose vs K. Muhammed Basheer, Jaison and The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The appellant, a housewife who was also running a broiler farm sustained 1) haemorrhagic contusion right frontal lobe and cerebal oedema, 2) lacerations on the occipital area and 3) abrasions above upper lip - in a road traffic accident which was caused by the negligence of the rider of a scooter (R2) in which the appellant was pillion riding. The scooter was duly insured at the time of the accident with the third respondent Insurance Company. The appellant''s grievance is that she has not been awarded adequate compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. She claimed Rs. 1,84,000/- and she was awarded only Rs. 65,000/-. According to her, the monthly income of Rs. 1,000/- adopted by the Tribunal as her notional income is too low. She also submits that Ext.A8 Disability Certificate in which it is certified that 15% is the permanent partial disability suffered by the appellant should have been accepted. We have heard the submissions of Sri. S. Rajeev the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt. P.K. Santhamma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company.

While Sri. Rajeev argued that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the submission of Smt. Santhamma was that there is no such inadequacy and that reasonable compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal.

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have carefully gone through the impugned award. We are of the view that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. According to us, the monthly income of the appellant could have been taken by the learned Tribunal to be Rs. 2,000/-. When the compensation awarded towards loss of earnings is re-calculated adopting the revised monthly income, the appellant becomes eligible for the award of a further sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of earnings and we award that amount the appellant.

On noticing the injuries sustained by the appellant, we are of the view that there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering. We award to the appellant Rs. 5,000/- more towards pain and suffering.

We notice similar inadequacy in the amount awarded towards loss of amenities. We award to the appellant Rs. 3,800/- more towards loss of amenities.

The appellant had to be treated as inpatient for 33 days. According to us there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded towards bystander''s expenses. We award to the appellant Rs. 3,950/- more towards bystander''s expenses.

On noticing the injuries sustained by the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant sustained at least 15% residual disability on account of those injuries. When disability compensation is re-determined adopting the revised monthly income and the percentage of disability it will be seen that the appellant becomes eligible for a further amount of Rs. 22,800/- under that head and we award that amount to the appellant. Thus the appellant is awarded a total amount of Rs. 41,550/- over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. This amount as well as the original amount awarded will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till date of payment.