AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—A collection agent in an Urban Co-operative Bank, the appellant sustained fracture of left femur in a road traffic accident in which he was thrown away from an autorickshaw in which he was travelling. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw which was duly insured with the second respondent Insurance Company. The appellant complains that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not award him adequate compensation for the injuries which is sustained in the road traffic accident. According to him, there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded. We have heard the submissions of Smt. K.V. Rashmi, the Learned Counsel for the appellant and also those of Sri. P.M.M. Najeeb Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for the contesting Insurance Company.
The submission of Smt.Rashmi was that there is gross inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal whereas the submission of Sri. Najeeb Khan was that there is no such inadequacy.
We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have very carefully read through the impugned award. We are in agreement with Smt.Rashmi that there is some inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant.
Having seen the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, we are of the view that the sum of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is inadequate and we therefore award to the appellant Rs. 5,000/- more.
We are surprised to find that the learned Tribunal did not award any compensation to the appellant towards loss of amenities. As we are convinced that on account of the injuries the appellant was deprived of all the amenities and pleasures of life during the period of treatment and convalescence and even for some time thereafter, we award to the appellant Rs. 15,000/- more towards loss of amenities.
The learned Tribunal has awarded a global sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards hospitalisation and incidental charges. We reckon that amount as award towards charges other than bystander''s expenses. Towards bystander''s expenses, we award to the appellant a separate amount of Rs. 4,200/-.
The learned Tribunal adopted the monthly income of the appellant to be Rs. 1,500/- per mensem notionally. We are of the view that the appellant''s notional income should have been taken as Rs. 2,500/-. When the loss of income is calculated adopting the higher monthly income it will be seen that the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 10,500/- more and we award that amount to the appellant.
The learned Tribunal relied on a disability certificate which was to the effect that the appellant suffered a permanent partial disability of 3%. A sum of Rs. 9,180/- was awarded as disability compensation treating the monthly income of the appellant to be Rs. 1,200/-. As we have revised the monthly income the disability compensation will also increase. We award to the appellant Rs. 6,120/- more towards disability compensation.
Thus in all the appellant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 40,820/- over and above what is awarded by the learned Tribunal. This amount will carry interest at the same rate as is awarded by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified as above.