K. Rajamohanan vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Joseph Francis, J.—This Appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1371 of 2000 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Manjeri. The case of the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) is briefly as follows. On 25.10.1998 at about 10.30 A.M. while the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1371 of 2000 and the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1372 of 200 were travelling in a motor cycle from Makkaraparamba to Perintalmanna, a bus driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the back side of the motor cycle causing injuries to the petitioners in both the O.P. (M.V.)s. Second respondent was the owner of the bus and third respondent was the insurer. Petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1371 of 2000 claimed Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation.

Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Third respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy of the bus and contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the first respondent and that the compensation claimed is excessive. Before the Claims Tribunal O.P. Nos. 1371 of 2000 and 1372 of 2000 were jointly tried. PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to 13 and X1 were marked.

The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence on record found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,33,875/- to the petitioner in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1371 of 2000 together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Third respondent was directed to deposit the amount as the insurer. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded the petitioner filed this Appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the accident the appellant underwent treatment for a long period of more than two years. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future treatment even though the appellant is continuing treatment. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award.

The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1371 of 2000 under various heads as follows:

The appellant was aged 40 years at the time of accident and he was working as an engineer in B.S.N.L. Medical records show that due to the accident the appellant sustained the following injuries. (i) Compound fracture left leg. (ii) Fracture right TCC and (iii) Fracture left femur. Ext. X1 disability certificate shows that due to the accident the appellant has 25% permanent disability. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and prolonged treatment underwent, we award Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering instead of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Rs. 20,000/- is awarded towards bystander expenses and Rs. 15,000/-is awarded towards expenses for extra nourishment instead of the consolidated amount of Rs. 12,600/- awarded by the Tribunal under the above heads. Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards compensation for loss of amenities in life. Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards future medical expenses. Thus in total, the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 1,32,400/- as additional compensation.

Accordingly this Appeal is allowed in part and the appellant/petitioner is allowed to realise Rs. 1,32,400/- as additional compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on Rs. 1,07,400/- from the date of petition till the date of realisation from respondents and the third respondent is directed to deposit the amount within three months from this date. There is no order as to costs.

However, the appellant is not entitled to get interest on the additional compensation for 812 days which is the period of delay in re-presenting the Appeal.