AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The appellant a coolie suffered crush injury over the left knee exposing the tendons patella fragment with profuse bleeding, apart from comminuted fracture left patella and abrasions over the left cheek in a road traffic accident involving a motorcycle in which he was pillion rider and another motorcycle which was insured with the respondent Insurance Company. It has been found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the other motorcycle. The appellant claimed a total sum of Rs. 1,36,500/- as compensation as against which the Tribunal awarded Rs. 47,750/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. According to the appellant there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal under almost all heads. We have heard the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the appellant and those of Mr. John Joseph Vettikad learned standing counsel for the contesting Insurance Company.
The argument of the Learned Counsel for the appellant was that there is inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Whereas the argument of Mr. John Joseph Vettikad was that there is no such inadequacy.
Having considered the submissions and having gone through the impugned award in detail we are of the view that there is some inadequacy in the compensation awarded by the MACT to the appellant. The appellant was a coolie and the learned Tribunal has adopted Rs. 1500/- as his monthly income notionally. We are of the view that having regard to the period when the accident occurred the notional monthly income of the appellant could have been taken as Rs. 2000/-. We take so. The learned Tribunal awarded loss of earnings to the appellant for five months only. We are of the view that the loss of earning should have been awarded for six months, that too at the rate of Rs. 2000/-. This means that the appellant is awarded Rs. 2000/- more towards loss of earning.
The appellant was treated as inpatient for 14 days. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 1000/- towards bystander''s expenses. We award to the appellant Rs. 1100/- more towards bystander''s expenses.
We find inadequacy in the compensation awarded towards pain and suffering. Having seen the nature of the injuries We therefore award to the appellant Rs. 4000/- more towards pain and suffering.
No compensation is awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant towards loss of amenities. We award to the appellant Rs. 8000/- as compensation for loss of amenities.
The learned Tribunal found that the appellant suffered a permanent partial disability of 8%. The percentage so arrived at by the learned Tribunal is correct. But the disability compensation has to be recalculated adopting the revised multiplicand of Rs. 24000/-. When it is so done the appellant becomes eligible for a further amount of Rs. 8960/- more towards disability compensation. Thus the appellant is awarded a total amount of Rs. 24,060/- as additional compensation. This amount as well as the original compensation awarded by the Tribunal will carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
The appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified as above.