Jithin M.V. vs I.P. Sambasivan, Ummark and Manager

K. Ramakrishnan, J.—The claimant in O.P. (M.V). No. 858/2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, is the appellant herein. The claimant was minor aged 11 years at the time of the accident. He filed the application through next friend, mother claiming compensation for the injuries and consequential disability sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the 2nd respondent in the lower court and awarded compensation under various heads as follows:

S. No.

Head of Claim

Amount Awarded

1.

Extra nourishment and wages to attendants

700.00

2.

Medical expenses

10,931.00

3.

Transportation charges

200.00

4.

Pain and sufferings

8,000.00

5.

Loss of amenities and happiness in life

3,000.00

6.

Permanent disability

15,750.00

Total

38,581.00

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant in the lower court has filed this appeal before this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurance company.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the doctor assessed disability at 11%, the Tribunal has taken only 7% for considering the compensation for permanent disability sustained, which is erroneous. Further, the amount awarded under the heads, pain and suffering and loss of amenities in life are also less. So, he claimed enhanced compensation on all heads.

The learned standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that considering the nature of evidence adduced and also the age of the injured, the amount awarded is just and proper and no interference is called for.

We have considered the rival contentions of both parties. It is true that the injured sustained fracture to his both bones right leg and the doctor, who was examined as PW2, issued Ext. A9 disability certificate assessing 5% personal disability to knee and 6% permanent disability to ankle. The Tribunal has considered this aspect and found that on account of the injuries sustained, there is no possibility of any disability being caused to the ankle and knee, and rightly taken 7% disability for the purpose of assessing the compensation under the head, permanent disability. So, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. But, considering the nature of injuries sustained and also the percentage of disability taken by the Tribunal, the amount awarded under the heads, pain and suffering and loss of amenities in life, appears to be less. So, we enhance the same to Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively instead of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. On all other heads, we do not find any reason to enhance any amount as the amount awarded under the other heads is just and proper. In all, the appellant would be entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs. 14,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which the 3rd respondent insurance company is liable to pay with 9% interest from the date of the claim petition till date of payment. Two months time is granted to the insurance company to deposit this amount as well.

With the above modification of the impugned award of the Tribunal, the appeal is disposed of.