K.T.Thankachan Vss V.M.Santhosh

T.R.Ravi, J

The claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The appellant aged 48 years engaged in marble works as a contractor-cum-worker met with an accident on 07.04.2008, while he was travelling in a motor cycle. The motor cycle was hit by a bus driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant suffered type II open fracture right tibia of right leg and lacerated wound on the right knee. The follow up treatment shows fracture of both bones on the right leg. There were lacerated injuries with contusion on the left eyebrow and left ear. He had undergone treatment as an inpatient for 45 days. Ext.A7 disability certificate shows that he has 18% permanent disability.

The Tribunal fixed his monthly notional income as ₹4,500/- and calculated the compensation on that basis. According to the appellant, even going by the decision in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in [AIR 2011 SC 2951], he was entitled to a notional income of ₹6,500/- and apart from that he had also produced Ext.A11 passbook, Ext.A12 certificate issued by the Village Officer and Ext.A13 job certificate to show that he was earning much more than ₹6,500/-. Ext.A11 is the passbook of the Kerala Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board. Ext.A12 is the certificate issued by the Village Officer, East Vayalar stating that the person shown as Varkey in Ext.A11 and the appellant are one and the same person. Ext.A13 is the certificate issued by the Vayalar Grama Panchayat showing that the appellant is a person engaged in tile and granite works. The appellant submits the he was hospitalized for 45 days and loss of earning has been granted only for 3 months, which is very much on the lower side. He also claims that only an amount of ₹10,000/- is granted for pain and sufferings, while as a matter of fact he had remained in the hospital itself for 45 days in view of serious injuries suffered by him. He claims that a similar increase is required under the head loss of amenities also. The counsel for the respondent insurer submitted that in view of the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), a sum of ₹6,500/- can be granted as the notional monthly income, since there is absence of clear evidence regarding the monthly income. The appellant had claimed compensation towards future medical expenses also regarding which the counsel for the insurer submitted that the accident happened in 2008 and one of the future treatments that was required was removal of implants regarding which absolutely no evidence is available as to whether it was done or whether it was sought to be done. It is also submitted that regarding future expenses for medicines, no material is available before the Court.

Having considered the contentions on either side, I am of the opinion that the notional monthly income of the appellant can be fixed at ₹6,500/-. The amount for loss of earning power has to be hence increased by a sum of ₹6,000/-. I do not think that the loss of earning should be for a period of more than 3 months since the claim itself was preferred within two months of the accident. Since the appellant had to be hospitalized for 45 days and had suffered fracture, I am of the opinion that compensation awarded for pain and suffering should be increased to ₹25,000/- and compensation for loss of amenities should be increased to ₹20,000/-. An additional sum of ₹25,000/- will be payable under the above two heads. The compensation for permanent disability has to be refixed on the basis of the monthly income of ₹6,500/-, which works out to ₹1,96,560/- (6500x12x 14x18%), calling for an increase of ₹60,480/- under that head.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced by a further sum of ₹91,480/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty only) with interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from 25.06.2008 till the date of realisation, with proportionate costs. The appeal was filed with a delay of 212 days. The delay was condoned on condition that the appellant will not be entitled to interest for 212 days. The 2nd respondent insurer shall deposit the additional compensation granted in this appeal along with the interest and proportionate costs, excluding interest for the period of delay of 212 days, before the Tribunal within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after deducting any amount to which the appellant is liable towards balance court fee and legal benefit fund. The disbursement of the compensation to the appellant shall be in accordance with law.