Chenthamara vs Saleem, M/s. Mayil Vahanam Tourist Service and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—An unskilled worker while being employed with Marico Industries met with a road traffic accident and he sustained very serious injuries including head injuries. As stated in paragraph 13 of the impugned award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, he suffered difuse cerebral oedema, brain stem oedema, pneumato ceeles and fracture of femur. He had to be treated as inpatient for 139 days in seven different spells. His permanent disability has been assessed by a Medical Board at 23.33%. He continues to be in a totally disabled condition. He is being treated even now. He complains that the total compensation for Rs. 3,56,105/- which was awarded by the Tribunal against his claim of Rs. 15 lakhs is quite inadequate. We have heard the submissions of Mr. M.P.Liju, Learned Counsel for the appellant and those of Mr. P. Muraleedharan, Learned Counsel for the Insurance company. Drawing our attention to the impugned award and to a few items of the evidence, Mr.Liju.M.P. Submitted that the compensation presently awarded is grossly inadequate. Mr. P. Muraleedharan for the Insurance Company, per contra submitted that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and there is no warrant for giving further enhancement.

Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and having carefully gone through the impugned award and having made a survey of the materials in evidence to which our attention was drawn by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that there is warrant for awarding more compensation to the appellant on some heads. We find that the compensation of Rs. 12,000/- presently awarded by the Moor Accidents Claims Tribunal towards loss of amenities is inadequate. We award to the appellant Rs. 13,000/- more towards loss of amenities. The appellant claimed in the O.P. that his monthly income at the time of the accident was Rs. 1,600/- . The learned Tribunal for the purpose of awarding compensation for loss of earning adopted is above the income. However, when it came to awarding disability compensation, the learned Tribunal took the income of the appellant notionally at Rs. 2,000/- . According to us, the income of the appellant could have been notionally taken to be Rs. 3,000/- for the purpose of calculating the disability compensation. We find that at the time of the accident the appellant was 24 years old. As already stated, the Medical Board assessed the percentage of disability suffered by the appellant at 23.33%. We round the same off to 24%. We recalculate the dependency compensation adopting the revised multiplicand of 36000/- and we change the disability percentage to 24%. This means that the appellant will have to be awarded Rs. 30,735/- more towards disability compensation. We award to the appellant the above sum of Rs. 30,735/- towards disability compensation. We are convinced on the materials available on record that the marriage prospects of the appellant who was 24 years of age at the time of the accident has been considerably diminished on account of the injuries. We award to the appellant Rs. 30,000/- towards diminished prospects of the marriage of the appellant. We also find that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for future treatment which according to the Learned Counsel for the appellant is inadequate. We award to the appellant Rs. 20,000/- more towards future treatment. Thus in total, we award to the appellant a sum of Rs. 93,735/- over and above what was awarded by the Tribunal. The additional amount will carry interest at the same rate awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award shall stand modified as above.