AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,
C.S.Dias,J",,,
The appellant was the petitioner in OP (MV) No.918 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The respondents in",,,
the appeal were the respondents in the claim petition.,,,
The facts in the claim petition, relevant for the determination of the appeal are: on 16.02.2006 while the appellant was travelling on a Scooter",,,
bearing registration No.KL-7/X 6445 on the Cherthala-Alappuzha National Highway, a Mini Lorry bearing registration No. KL-7/AZ (offending",,,
vehicle) owned and driven by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent hit the Scooter causing serious injuries to the appellant. Her,,,
daughter was also a pillion rider on the said scooter. The appellant was treated at the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha as an in-patient from",,,
16.02.2006 to 18.02.2006. The appellant sustained a fracture of the 3rd metatarsal right and unicortcal fracture upper tibia left. The accident was,,,
caused solely due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle. The appellant,,,
claimed to be a manual labourer by profession and earning an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month. The appellant claimed compensation from the",,,
respondents, which she quantified at Rs.1,05,000/-",,,
The 1st respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement and additional written,,,
statement denying negligence on the part of the part of the 1st respondent and contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on,,,
the part of the appellant. The 2nd respondent also till disputed the age, occupation and income of the appellant.",,,
The appellant examined the Doctor who issued Ext.A1 Disability Certificate as PW1 and also produced and marked Exts.A1 to A13 series in,,,
evidence. Ext.C1-Case Records were also marked in evidence.,,,
The appellant's daughter had also filed OP(MV)No.919 of 2006 before the Tribunal seeking compensation.,,,
The Tribunal consolidated and jointly tried both the claim petitions and by impugned common award allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant,,,
permitting her to realise an amount of Rs.22,849/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and cost",,,
Rs.228/- from the 2nd respondent.,,,
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner is in appeal.",,,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.,,,
The questions that emerge for consideration in the appeal are (i) whether the non-acceptance of Ext.A1 disability certificate by the Tribunal is,,,
justifiable and (ii) whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and just?,,,
Ext.A3 FIR and Ext.A4 charge-sheet clearly substantiate that the accident was caused solely due to the rashness and negligence on the part of,,,
the 1st respondent. It is undisputed that the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it is the 2nd respondent who is liable to",,,
indemnify the 1st respondent of his liability to pay compensation to the appellant.,,,
Ext.A12-Discharge Summary substantiates that the appellant had suffered a fracture of the 3rd metatarsal right and unicortcal fracture upper tibia,,,
left. She had examined PW1, the Doctor who issued Ext.A1. The Doctor has testified that the appellant has a permanent whole-body disability of",,,
10% due to the injuries sustained by her. Unfortunately, the Tribunal without averting to the evidence of PW1 or Ext.A1 certificate, went on to hold",,,
that the appellant does not have any disability, which according to me is patently erroneous and wrong.",,,
In Rajkumar v. Ajayakumar [2011(1) KLT 620 (SC)], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that a disability certificate can be proved by",,,
examination of the Doctor who issued the same or it is open to the injured to get himself examined by a duly constituted medical board.,,,
In the case on hand, the appellant had produced Ext.A1 disability certificate, which was proved through PW1, who certified that the appellant has",,,
a permanent whole-body disability at 10%. However, the Tribunal without any reason failed to advert to the said document and the oral testimony of",,,
PW1.,,,
In Union of India and another v. Talwinder Singh [2012 (5) SCC 480], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the court should not ordinarily",,,
interfere with the opinions of experts. It would be safe for the courts to follow the opinion to the experts who are familiar with the problems than to,,,
give its general opinion.,,,
In the case on hand, PW1, the expert has certified that the appellant has a permanent whole-body disability of 10% as evidenced by Ext.A1.",,,
Therefore, I accept Ext.A1 and hold that the appellant has a permanent whole-body disability as assessed by PW1 at 10%.",,,
The appellant had claimed that she was a manual labourer earning a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. However, the Tribunal fixed the notional",,,
income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/-. True, the appellant had not produced any document to substantiate her income.",,,
TheHon'bleSupremeCourtin Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236] and Syed",,,
Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2014) 2 SCC 735] has fixed the notional income of a Coolie worker in the year 2004,",,,
at Rs.4,500/- per month and that of a vegetable vendor in the year 2008, at Rs.6,500/- per month,respectively.",,,
Notional income,,,
Following the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decisions and considering the fact that the appellant was,,,
aged 46 years and was a manual labourer, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant's notional income can safely be fixed at Rs.4,000/- per",,,
month as claimed in the claim petition. Hence, I re-fix the appellant's notional income at Rs.4,000/- per month.",,,
Ext.A5-Wound Certificate and Ext.A12 discharge summary clearly proves that the appellant had suffered a fracture of the 3rd metatarsal right,,,
and unicortcal fracture upper tibia left, which is serious in nature.",,,
Eventhough, she had claimed that she was unable to go for work for four months, the Tribunal fixed her loss of earnings only for two months. In view",,,
of the evidence that has been let in by PW1 read with Ext.A1 disability certificate, Ext.A5 wound certificate and Ext.A12 discharge summary, I am of",,,
the firm opinion that the appellant's loss of earnings can be fixed at three months.,,,
Loss of earnings,,,
Sl. No,Heads of claim,"Amount awarded by the
Tribunal (in rupees)","Amounts modified and
recalculated by this Court
1,Loss of earning,"6,000/-","12,000/-
2,Transportation charges,700/-,700/--
3,Extra nourishment,500/-,500/-
4,Damages to clothing,350/-,350/-
5,Byestander expenses,300/-,300/-
6,Medical expenses,299/-,299/-
7,Pain and sufferings,"10,000/-","10,000/-
8,Loss of amenities,"4,700/-","4,700/-
9,Loss due to disability,nil,62400
,,"22,849/-","91,249/