M.K.Narayanan S/o S.Krishna Panicker vs M/s New India Assurance Co.Ltd

C.S.Dias,J

The appellant was the petitioner in O.P(MV) No.1408/2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The respondent in the

appeal was the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. The parties are for the sake of convenience referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

The facts in brief, relevant for the determination of the appeal, are: on 29.5.2001 while the petitioner was travelling as pillion on a motorcycle from

Wandoor to Nilambur, a mini bus bearing Reg.No.KL-05/A -6637 driven by the 3rd respondent hit the motorcycle. The motorcycle was driven by the

1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The bus was owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the 5th respondent. The petitioner

contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of both the vehicles Therefore, the petitioner asserted that

therespondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him, which he quantified at Rs.1,75,000/-.  Â

The respondents 1,3 and 5 did not contest the proceedings and were set ex parte.

The 2nd respondent had filed a written statement admitting that the motorcycle had a valid insurance coverage. However, it was contended that the

accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent â€" the driver of the bus.

The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned award allowed the claim petition, in part, by permitting the

petitioner to realise an amount of Rs.80,756/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation along with

proportionate costs from the 2nd respondent.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner is in appeal.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/insurer of the

motorcycle.

The appellant examined himself as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 series were marked in evidence. The respondents did not adduce any evidence.

The  sole  question  that  emerges  for consideration in the appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is reasonable and just?

Notional income

The petitioner had stated that he was a Medical Representative by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal fixed the

notional income of the petitioner at Rs.2,000/- per month.

In Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [(2011) 13 SCC 236], the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has fixed the notional income of a coolie worker in the year 2004 at Rs.4,500/- per month.

Following the ratio in the afore-cited decision and taking note of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2001, I re-fix the notional income of

the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- per month.

Loss of earnings

It is on record that the petitioner had sustained a head injury and a fracture of the fronto parietal bone. He was hospitalised for a period of 14

days. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was incapacitated for a period of six months.

In view of the re-fixation of the notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month, I re-fix the compensation under the head 'loss of

earnings' at Rs.18,000/-,i.e., an enhancement of Rs.10,000/-.

Bystander expenses

It is proved as per Ext.A2 wound certificate and Ext.A3 discharge summary that the petitioner was treated as an inpatient for a period of 14 days.

The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,400/- towards 'bystander expenses', at the rate of Rs.100/-, which according to me is on the lower side.

Therefore, I re-fix the 'bystander expenses' at Rs.200/- per day for a period of 14 days, i.e., a total amount of Rs.2,800/-.

Pain and suffering

The appellant had sustained a head injury and a fracture of the fronto parietal bone. He was treated as an inpatient for a period of 14 days. The

Tribunal also assessed that the petitioner has a disability of 15%. However, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for

'pain and suffering' as against the claim of Rs.25,000/- which again according to me is on the lower side. Therefore, I enhance the compensation

under the said head by a further amount of Rs.10,000/-.

Other heads of claim

With respect to the other heads of compensation, I find that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation.

On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record and the law laid down in the afore-cited decision, I am of the definite

opinion that the appellant/petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and re-calculated above, i.e., an enhancement by a

further amount of Rs.21,400/-namely Rs.10,000/- under the head 'loss of earning', Rs.1400/- under the head 'bystander expenses' and Rs.10,000/-

under the head compensation for 'pain and suffering'.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, in part, by enhancing the compensation by a further amount of Rs.21,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% per

annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of deposit, after deducting the interest for a period of 1630 days, i.e., the

period of delay in representing the appeal and as ordered by this Court on 22.11.2010 in C.M.Appli. No.3070/2010, and proportionate costs. The 2nd

respondent shall pay the the enhanced compensation by depositing the amount awarded in the appeal before the Tribunal with interest and

proportionate costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Tribunal shall disburse the

enhanced compensation to the appellant/petitioner, in accordance with law.