Mathew Thomas vs P.J. Jose, P.V. Joseph and National Insurance Company, Kalpetta

Joseph Francis, J.—This appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 196 of 1997 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Wayanad, Kalpetta. The case of the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) is briefly as follows. On 2.3.1997 at about 4.30 P.M., the petitioner was travelling on a motor cycle bearing reg. No. KRD-5282. When it reached Eachome, a jeep bearing reg. No. KLW-3421 driven by the first respondent rashly and negligently and at over speed hit against the motor cycle, as a result of which the petitioner sustained serious injuries. The accident occurred solely due to the rashness and negligent of the first respondent. The second respondent was the owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the jeep. The petitioner claimed Rs. 3,63,000/- as compensation. But, limited his claim to Rs. 3,50,000/-.

The first and second respondents filed joint written statement admitting the accident but disputing the manner in which the accident occurred and the quantum of compensation claimed by the appellant. The third respondent filed written statement admitting the accident but disputing the manner in which it occurred and also disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. The third respondent admitted the existence of a valid policy of insurance of the offending vehicle.

Before the Claims Tribunal PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to 12 were marked. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents. 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. 2,05,888/- to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the respondents and the 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 the compensation awarded is on the lower side and that the appellant is entitled to get enhanced compensation under various heads. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award.

The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as follows:

Exts. A4 to 9 are the medical records showing that due to the accident the appellant had sustained fracture of both bones right leg and other injuries, and that he was hospitalised for seventy days. Ext. A10 is the disability certificate showing that due to the injuries sustained in the accident the appellant had 20% permanent disability. But the Claims Tribunal did not accept the permanent disability assessed in Ext. A10. Considering the nature of injuries sustained and the treatment undergone, we are of the view that it is only just and reasonable to assess the permanent disability of the appellant as 10%. At the time of accident, the appellant was aged 30 years and therefore, 17 can be taken as the suitable multiplier. The appellant was an agriculturist and business man and therefore it is reasonable to assess his monthly income as Rs. 3,000/- instead of Rs. 2,500/- taken by the Tribunal. Calculating on that basis, the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 61,200/- (Rs. 3,000 x 12 x 10 x 17/100) as compensation for permanent disability and loss of earning power instead of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Rs. 18,000/- can be awarded towards compensation for loss of earnings in place of Rs. 15,000/- awarded. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries and the treatment undergone, we award Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering in the place of Rs. 30,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. Considering the prolonged treatment undergone Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards by standers expenses in the place of Rs. 3,500/- awarded. Thus in total the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 60,700/- as additional compensation.

Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part allowing the appellant/petitioner to realise Rs. 60,700/- as additional compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the respondents and the third respondent is directed to deposit the amount within three months from this date. However, the appellant is not entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation for 556 days which is the period of delay in filing the appeal. There is no order as to costs.