Ashraf vs Saji Joseph and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The appellant, a fish vendor, sustained type 2 compound fracture of right tibia and other injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred while he was pillion riding a motor cycle. The accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of a jeep which had been insured with the third respondent Insurance Company. The grievance voiced by the appellant in this appeal is that the learned Tribunal did not award him adequate compensation. His claim was for a total amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, but the learned Tribunal awarded him only Rs. 48,300/- under various heads.

Sri. N.J. Antony, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He would argue particularly that the learned Tribunal was not justified in ignoring Ext.C1 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. The learned counsel submitted that in stead of relying on Ext.C1, what the learned Tribunal did was to award a lump sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for disability. The counsel also submitted that the monthly income of Rs. 2,500/- notionally adopted by the learned Tribunal was not sufficient.

Per contra, learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that there is no inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. According to him, the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and there is no justification for increasing the same.

Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having carefully gone through the impugned award, we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded. We cannot accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the monthly income of Rs. 2,500/- adopted by the learned Tribunal is low. At the same time, we are of the view, having seen the nature of the injuries, that the appellant should have been awarded loss of earningS for three months. Hence, we are awarding Rs. 2,500/- more to the appellant towards loss of earning.

Towards pain and suffering the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs. 7500/-. This, according to us, is inadequate. Hence, we are awarding Rs. 7,500/- to the appellant towards compensation for pain and suffering.

We are surprised to note that the learned Tribunal did not award any compensation to the appellant towards loss of amenities in life during the period of treatment and convalescence. Hence, we award to the appellant Rs. 10000/- towards loss of amenities.

The appellant was treated as inpatient in the hospital for 9 days. There is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal towards by stander''s expenses. Hence, we award to the appellant Rs. 1350/- more towards by stander''s expenses.

As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Medical Board assessed disability suffered by the appellant at 15%. Having seen the nature of the injuries, we are of the view that the appellant would have suffered at least 10% permanent partial disability. We adopt 10% as percentage of disability suffered by the appellant and calculate the disability compensation on the basis of the monthly income adopted by the Tribunal and the multiplier applicable to persons in the age group of the appellant. This means, the appellant will become eligible to get total amount of Rs. 51,000/- towards compensation for disability. After deducting Rs. 20,000/- already awarded by the learned Tribunal, we award Rs. 31,000/- more to the appellant towards disability compensation. The result of the above is that over and above what has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant is awarded total amount of Rs. 52,350/- (2500+7500+10000+1350+31000) as additional compensation. This amount will carry interest at the rate of 7% from the date of the application till the date of realisation.

The appeal is allowed and the impugned award shall stand modified as above.