AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—A tourist taxi driver who suffered supra condylar fracture to right knee necessitating surgical intervention and other injuries in a road traffic accident involving the motorcycle in which he was travelling as a pillion rider and an autorickshaw which was duly insured with the third respondent Insurance Company challenges the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal mainly on two planks:
1) The finding by the learned Tribunal that there was 75% contribution on the part of the rider of the motorcycle in the negligence which led to the accident is wrong.
2) The total compensation determined by the learned Tribunal which is Rs. 1,58,200/- as against the claim for Rs. 2 lakhs is inadequate.
We have heard the submissions of Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Smt.M.Hemalatha, the learned Standing Counsel for the contesting Insurance Company.
Sri.Anzar argued that the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident was the result of negligence in which the contribution of the rider of the motorcycle was 75% is totally erroneous. According to him, the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the autorickshaw driver. Sri.Anzar further submitted that at any rate the Tribunal did not award adequate compensation to the appellant under the various heads.
Smt.Hemalatha would oppose the submissions of Sri.Anzar and submit that there is no infirmity to the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding the contribution of the motorcycle driver in the negligence. According to her reasonable compensation has been awarded and there is no warrant for giving any increase.
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 quick re-appraisal of the evidence which came on record, we are of the view that the percentage of 75 fastened by the learned Tribunal on the rider of the motorcycle in the negligence which led to the accident is not correct. On our re-appraisal of the evidence we find that it was the autorickshaw driver who was more negligent and the contribution of the motorcycle rider was only 30%. We modify the finding of the learned Tribunal in the above regard and fix the motorcycle rider''s contribution at 30%.
Coming to the question of compensation to be awarded, we find merit in the submission of Sri.Anzar. The Doctor certified that on account of the injuries, the appellant suffered 15% permanent partial disability. The learned Tribunal adopted the said percentage. The learned Tribunal, as against the appellant''s claim based on Ext.A6 that he was drawing monthly income of Rs. 5,000/-, awarded notional income of Rs. 2,000/- per mensem as the income of the appellant for determining loss of earning and disability compensation. According to us, the learned Tribunal should have taken at least Rs. 3,000/- per mensem as the monthly income of the appellant. When disability compensation is re-worked adopting the revised multiplicand, the appellant has to be awarded Rs. 30,600/- more towards disability compensation and we award the same additionally to the appellant.
The learned Tribunal awarded loss of earnings to the appellant only for four months. According to us, in the nature of the injuries suffered by the appellant, he could not earn anything for six months. When loss of earnings is re-calculated in that manner the appellant is to be awarded Rs. 10,000/- more which we award.
The appellant was treated as inpatient in the hospital for 40 days. Obviously no amount was awarded by the learned Tribunal to the appellant towards bystander''s expenses. We award to the appellant Rs. 8,000/- towards bystander''s expenses.
Having seen the nature of injuries, we find inadequacy in the compensation awarded for pain and suffering as well as towards the head of loss of amenities. We award Rs. 5,000/- each under those two heads to the appellant.
Thus, the compensation payable is enhanced by Rs. 58,600/-, which means that the total amount payable as compensation is Rs. 2,16,600/-. As we have reduced the percentage of contribution to 30% the total amount to which the appellant becomes eligible is re-fixed as Rs. 1,51,620/-. This means that over and above the sum of Rs. 39,550/-awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant becomes eligible for a further amount of Rs. 1,12,070/- which we award to him. This amount will carry interest at the rate specified in the award of the learned Tribunal. The award is modified as above. The appeal is allowed. No costs.