AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramakrishna Pillai, J
The claimant, who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident which occurred on 02/07/2004, has come up in appeal.
He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/-, against which the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,60,400/-under various heads. The adequacy of compensation is under challenge in this appeal.
Allegedly, while the appellant was riding his motorcycle, it collided with an autorickashaw, which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the accident he sustained injuries. It was further alleged that he was a driver earning a monthly income of Rs. 5,115/-.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant took us to the relevant page of the award, which details out the injuries sustained by the appellant.
The medical records would reveal that as a result of the accident, the appellant sustained brain oedema with compression of brain stem as well as extradural haemorrhage at right parietal region. In addition to that, both bones of left leg was fractured at lower 1/3rd. C. T. Scan revealed that there were haemorrhagic contusions with surrounding oedema in the right frontal lobe and left parietal region. There was evidence of a hyperdense epidural haematoma over the right parietal lobe and evidence of heterogenous subdural haematoma over the left parietal convexity. The appellant had undergone treatment for about 87 days.
The learned Tribunal, while computing the amount of compensation, fixed the monthly income of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant is low. There is evidence to show that the appellant was a driver and he was aged only 37 years at the time of the accident. Hence, it is reasonable to presume that he might have earned at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month, by engaging himself as a driver.
Considering the nature of injuries sustained, we are of the view that the appellant might not have been able to do any work atleast for a period of six months. Hence, towards loss of earning for six months, the appellant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 21,000/-. We do note that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of earning.
Bystanders expenses at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day was awarded by the learned Tribunal for 87 days. As the accident was of the year 2004, we are of the view that towards bystanders expenses at the rate of Rs. 200/- could have been awarded to the appellant. Hence, we award to the appellant an additional amount of Rs. 8,700/- towards bystanders expenses.
It is surprising to note that the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 54,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities, which is one third of the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal as compensation for permanent disability. We feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under that head is excessive. However, we are not modifying the same, as the respondent insurance company has not filed any appeal or cross objection against the award.
Towards permanent disability, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/-. This was computed fixing the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- and adopting the multiplier as ''15''. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on Ext.A20 and argued that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal as compensation for permanent disability is low. The learned Tribunal has fixed the residual disability of the appellant at 30%, though, in fact, the residual disability as per Ext.A20 was 40%, it was so submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.
As we are of the definite view that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal for loss of amenities in life is more than what the appellant is entitled to, we feel that the percentage fixed by the learned Tribunal for arriving at the compensation for residual disability need not be disturbed. However, the amount has to be recalculated fixing the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 3,500/-. When recalculated as above, the appellant will be entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 27,000/- towards compensation for permanent disability.
Thus in total, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 56,700/-, over and above what was awarded by the learned Tribunal.
In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The award shall stand modified as above. The additional amount awarded will carry interest at the rate specified in the award.